C.Shanmugaraj (HUF), Kangeyam V. ITO Ward 2(4), Salem

ITA 757/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1304 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K HARI GOVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.757 & 758/CHNY/2019 ' #$' / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 & 2014-15 SHRI C. SHANMUGARAJ (HUF), NO.47, METTU KADAI, MUTHUR, KANGAYAM 638 105. PAN : AACHC 8852 J V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), TIRUPPUR, 60 FEET ROAD, KUMARANATHAPURAM, TIRUPPUR. (&'/ APPELLANT) (()&'/ RESPONDENT) &' * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE ()&' * + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. HARI GOVIND, JCIT , # * -. / DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2019 /0$ * -. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.09.2019 / O R D E R BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -3, COIMBATORE, DATED 27.09.2018 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE APPEALS, I HEARD THESE AP PEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 I.T.A. NOS.757 & 758/CHNY/19 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 115 DAYS IN FILING THESE AP PEALS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PETITIONS FOR CON DONATION OF DELAY. I HAVE HEARD THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E AND THE LD. D.R. I FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NO T FILING THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE, I C ONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEALS. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ESTIM ATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 4. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATED 19.17 ACRES OF LAND AN D DISCLOSED INCOME THEREFROM AT 20 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, RESTRICTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT 8,64,000/-. HOWEVER, ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(APPEALS) ESTIMATED NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT 65,000/- PER ACRE. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD.COUNSEL CLARIFIED THAT APART FROM COCONUT TREES, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO CULTIVATING TURMERIC, SUGARCANE AND PADDY. TH E LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT A REASONABLE ESTIMATION MAY BE MADE FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI K. HARI GOVIND, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT RECEIVED 3 I.T.A. NOS.757 & 758/CHNY/19 FROM THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER REASONABLY ESTIMATED INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AT 8,64,000/-. IN FACT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN NO TE OF STANDING COCONUT TREES AND AVERAGE YIELD THEREFROM PER TREE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED INCOME FROM COCONUT AT 9,10,000/- PER YEAR. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF AVAILABLE COWS AND INCOME FROM SUB-PRODUCTS FROM THE COCONUT TREES AND REASONABLY ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME AFTER REDUCING THE EXPENDITURE, AT 8,64,000/-. MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS FAIR ENOUGH IN T AKING NOTE OF THE CULTIVATION OF OTHER CROPS SUCH AS TURMERIC, SUGARC ANE AND PADDY AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME REASONABLY AT 65,000/- PER ACRE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., NO INTERFEREN CE IS CALLED FOR. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHE R SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CULTIVATING 19.17 ACRE S OF LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DEPUTED HIS INSPECTOR AND ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE INSPECTOR, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THAT THERE ARE 700 STANDING COCONUT TREES. THAT MEANS 10 ACRE S OF LAND WAS CULTIVATED WITH COCONUT TREES AND THE BALANCE OF 9. 17 ACRES OF LAND APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CULTIVATED WITH TURMERIC, SUGA RCANE AND 4 I.T.A. NOS.757 & 758/CHNY/19 PADDY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ADAN GAL EXTRACT FROM THE STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THE FACT OF CULTIVATION. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE LAND WAS CLASSIFIED AS WETLAND. THIS FACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE OBSERVATION OF TH E CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATED TURMERIC, SUGARCANE AND PAD DY APART FROM COCONUT TREES IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT 75,000/- PER ACRE INSTEAD OF 65,000/- PER ACRE WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. HAD THE REVENUE DISPUTED THE FACT OF CULTIVATION OF TURMERI C, SUGARCANE AND PADDY AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(APPEALS), THE MATTER W OULD STAND ON DIFFERENT FOOT. SINCE THIS FACT AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT DISPUTED, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE EARNED 75,000/- PER ACRE AS NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM CULTIVATION. THEREFORE, THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE MODIFIED AND THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS DIRECTED TO TAKE 75,000/- PER ACRE AS INCOME FROM CULTIVATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 5 I.T.A. NOS.757 & 758/CHNY/19 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED, THE 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 KRI. * (-34 54$- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. ()&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 6- () /CIT(A)-3, COIMBATORE 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-3, COIMBATORE 5. 4#7 (- /DR 6. 8' 9 /GF.