, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.745/CHNY/2018 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI P. JANAKIRAMAN, NEW NO.2, OLD NO.3, R BLOCK, PLOT NO.3822, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 040. PAN : AAJPJ 1327 J V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. NANDAKUMAR, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 29.11.2018 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.12.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI , DATED 31.01.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISAL LOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 2 I.T.A. NO.745/CHNY/18 3. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A SUM OF 6,00,000/- AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASS ESSEE, IN FACT, PRODUCED COPIES OF ADANGAL AND CHITTA EXTRACTS WITH REGARD TO CULTIVATION, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT SUCH DOCUMENTS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER A CCORDINGLY TREATED THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME. REFERRING TO THE ADANGAL EXTRACT, WHICH IS AVAILABL E AT PAGE 90 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE IS OWNING ABOUT 10 ACRES OF LAND AND IS CULTIVATING CA SUARINA TREES. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI V. NANDAKUMAR, THE LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SPECIFICALLY OBSERVED THAT THE CHITTA AND ADANGAL EXTRACTS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASS ESSING OFFICER 3 I.T.A. NO.745/CHNY/18 FOUND THAT WHAT WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW PRODUCED COPIES OF CHITTA AND ADANGAL EXTRA CTS WHICH SHOW CULTIVATION OF CASUARINA TREES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(APPEALS) CLAIM THAT THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. IN VIEW OF THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-E XAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE- EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADANGAL AND CHITTA EXTRA CTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4 I.T.A. NO.745/CHNY/18 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 RD DECEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESA N) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 3 RD DECEMBER, 2018. KRI. / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-7, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.