Smt N.T.Mary, Trichur V. DCIT, Ernakulam

ITSSA 74/COCH/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9179 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2005
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K THATAI
• Assessee Lawyers: K SRINIVASA SHENOY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Block assessment; Onus to prove
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COC HIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JM AND SANJAY ARORA , AM I.T.(SS)A. NO.74/COCH/2005 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1988 TO 28.9.1998 SMT. N.T.MARY, THERATTIL KOONAN HOUSE, LALOOR P.O., ELTHURUTHU, THRISSUR. [PAN: AEJPM 5912E] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI K.SRINIVASA SHENOY, CA REVENUE BY SHRI A.K.THATAI, CIT-DR O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 22.12.2004, AND THE BLOCK PERIOD UNDER REFERENCE IS 1.4.1988 TO 28.9.1998. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THERE WA S SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) IN THE CASE OF ON E SHRI K.M.VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, M/S. KALYAN JEWELLERS, TRICHUR AND PARTNER, M/S. FIVE ST AR JEWELLERY, TRICHUR, ON 28.9.1998. IN THE COURSE OF THE SAID SEARCH, EVIDENCES, INCLUD ING TOWARD UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE, WERE SEIZED. ACCORDINGLY, NOTIC E U/S. 158BC R.W.S. 158BD WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS RESPONDED TO BY FILING T HE RETURN IN FORM 2B ON 14.11.2000 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 1876/-. THE SAME WAS ACCOMPANIED B Y A CASH FLOW STATEMENT, DISCLOSING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT AN AGGREGATE OF R S. 3.83 LACS (FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD) TOWARD, ALONG WITH THE OTHER INCOMES, THE VARIOUS I NVESTMENTS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND SUBSCRIPTION TO CHITTIES, EVIDENCE IN RESPECT O F WHICH WAS FOUND IN AND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FOUND THE ASSESS EES CLAIMS WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS BOTH UNSUBSTANTIATED AS WELL AS EXAGGERATED. HE, ACCORDINGLY, IT(SS)A. NO.74/COCH./2005 2 TREATED A PART OF IT AS NON-AGRICULTURAL AND, THUS, AS TAXABLE INCOME, ASSESSING THE SAME AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,45,220/-. THE OTHER INCOMES, WHICH WERE PRINCIPALLY FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY AND BANK INTEREST, WERE ALSO TAKEN, AT THE RETURNED FIGURES, AS UNDISCLOSED INCO ME, FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSSESSEE HAD EITHER NOT FILED ANY REGULAR RETURNS OF INCOME (AYS 1989-90 TO 1995-96) OR, THOUGH FILED, WERE BELATED AND ALSO AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH (AYS 1996-97 TO 1998-99), AND FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT AT RS. 6,21,454/- VIDE ORDER DATED 30.10 .2002. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME , FINDING THE AOS ESTIMATE AS REASONABLE, I.E., WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEES LAND HOLDING AND THE NORMATIVE CROP YIELD; THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS IN THIS REGARD BEING F AR HIGHER THAN THE ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS, BESIDES BEING UNSUPPORTED WITH ANY MATERIAL. THE AS SESSEES ARGUMENT OF THEIR BEING NO PROVISION IN LAW FOR THE BIFURCATION OF THE AGRICUL TURE INCOME INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL, OR FOR THE CHANGE IN THE HEAD OF INCOME, I.E., IN THE BLOC K ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WAS MET BY HIM ON THE BASIS THAT THE ADMITTED INCOME BEING ONL Y TOWARD EXPLAINING THE ADMITTED INVESTMENTS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT(S) AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLO CK PERIOD. WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER INCOMES OF THE ASSESSEE, HE ALLOWED RELIEF THERETO IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT TO SEC. 158BB(1) BY THE INSERTION OF CLAUSE (CA) THERETO BY FINANCE ACT, 2002 W.R.E.F. 1/7/1995, AND DIRECTED FOR REDUCTION OF THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT NO T CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS COMPRISING THE BLOCK PERIOD. AGGRI EVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. WE SHALL PROCEED GROUND-WISE. 3. THE FIRST GROUND CONTESTS THE LEGALITY OF THE AS SESSMENT ON THE GROUND OF THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 158BC R.W.S. 158BD OF T HE ACT AS NO SEARCH WARRANT STOOD ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS U/S.158BC R/W S. 158BD, AND WHICH IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF A PERSON OTH ER THAN IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH OR REQUISITION PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED, SO THAT THE POINT AGITATED HAS NO BASIS IN LAW. THE GROUND WAS, HOWEVER, AND PERHAPS FOR THAT REASON, N OT PRESSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING BY THE LD. AR. THE SAME, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A. NO.74/COCH./2005 3 4. VIDE THE SECOND GROUND, THE ASSESSEE AGITATES TH E ASSESSMENT OF A PART OF ITS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS NON-AGRICULTURAL. THE BACKGR OUND FACTS STAND ALREADY RECOUNTED. BEFORE US, LIKE SUBMISSIONS STOOD RAISED BY EITHER SIDE. THE BURDEN TO PROVE ITS RETURN AND, THUS, THE CLAIMS PREFERRED THEREBY, IT IS TRIT E LAW, AND AS ALSO ARGUED BY THE REVENNUE BEFORE US, IS ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GIVEN A FINDING OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCO ME AS BEING EXAGGERATED IN RELATION TO THE ACCEPTED PREVAILING STANDARDS OF YIELD. UNDER T HE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW AS TO HOW, NOTWITHSTANDING THE SAM E, IT HAD YET EARNED A HIGHER INCOME FROM HIS LAND FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS, WHILE WE FIND ITS CLAIM TO BE UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, I.E., AS WOULD ACCOMPANY A CLA IM TOWARD A NORMATIVE YIELD AND, THUS, LEVEL OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FURTHER ON, THE YIELD OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS AND, THEREFORE, INCOME THERE-FROM, IT IS WELL KNOWN, FOL LOWS A CYCLICAL PATTERN. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE, BEGINNING WITH A DECL ARATION OF RS. 33,000/- FOR THE FIRST YEAR (AY 1989-90), GRADUALLY UPSCALED ITS INCOME, I N INSTALMENTS OF RS. 1000/- IN THE MAIN, TO RS. 38,000/- FOR AY 1996-97, KEEPING IT AT THAT LEVEL THEREAFTER. IN FACT, THE SAME STANDS RETURNED AT RS. 15,800/- FOR THE YEAR IMMEDI ATELY SUCCEEDING THE YEAR OF SEARCH, I.E., AY 2000-01, STATING THE CONTINUOUS FALL IN TH E PRICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE YEAR AFTER YEAR, WHILE THE LABOUR AND OTHER INCIDENTAL C OSTS ARE REQUIRED TO AND STAND MAINTAINED, AS THE REASON. THE SAME IS IN CLEAR CON TRADICTION WITH ITS DECLARED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD, WHICH ALSO VIOLATES, AS NOTED EAR LIER, THE NATURAL CYCLE ATTENDING THE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY, EVEN AS TACITLY ADMITTED BY R ETURNING THE INCOME FOR THE FIRST YEAR AFTER THE BLOCK PERIOD AT A MUCH LOWER AMOUNT. ALSO , AT THE COST OF REPETITION, THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS ARE WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL. UNDER T HE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONFIRM THE SAME. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 6. THE THIRD GROUND RELATES TO THE INCLUSION OF THE INCOME FOR A.Y. 1989-90 TO 1995- 96, BEING BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMITS FOR THOSE YEARS, IN THE COMPUTATION OF ITS INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF N.R.PAPER AND BOARD LIMITED VS. DCIT , 234 ITR 733 (GUJ.). THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. M.M. GEORGE , 254 ITR 45 IT(SS)A. NO.74/COCH./2005 4 (KER.). IN THIS REGARD, THERE IS OR CANNOT BE ANY D OUBT THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IS TO BE COMPUTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 158BB. WE ARE, AS SUCH, UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, BEING BASED ON CASE LAW RENDERED PRIOR TO 1.4.2002. VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2002 W.R.E.F. 1.7.1995, THE LAW STANDS AMENDED BY INSERTION OF SUB-CLAUSE (CA) TO SECTION 158BB(1). PER THE AM ENDED CLAUSE (CA), WHICH WOULD HOLD AND COVER THE ANY BLOCK ASSESSMENT, WHERE THE DUE D ATE OF FILING OF RETURN FOR ANY YEAR (FALLING WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD) HAS EXPIRED (ON T HE DATE OF SEARCH) AND NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED, CREDIT IN RESPECT OF ANY INC OME FOR THAT YEAR COULD BE ALLOWED ONLY WHERE THE SAID INCOME IS EITHER AT A NET LOSS OR DO ES NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR(S) AND, FURTHER, ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTRIES AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OT HER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION. THIS IS AS IN THAT CASE THE PERSON IS NOT OBLIGED BY LAW TO FILE THE R ETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS ITS CASE TO FALL UNDER THE LATTER CATEGORY, WITH ITS IN COME FROM THE `REGULAR SOURCES BEING BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT. THE MATTER UNDER ISSUE, TH US, IS NOT OF LAW; THE SAME BEING CLEAR, BUT OF FACT. WHAT, THEREFORE, IS REQUIRED FOR THE A PPLICATION OF THE LAW IS A FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SAID INCOME STANDS RECORDED OR BORN E OUT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE BY THE AS SESSEE. THERE IS NO FINDING WITH REGARD TO THIS BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHILE THE AO IS A LSO NOT VERY CATEGORICAL IN THE MATTER, EVEN AS HE REMARKS THAT THE RETURNS SEEM TO HAVE BE EN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO COVER UP THE DEFICIENCY IN THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE TO EXPLAI N THE INVESTMENTS, INDICATING OTHERWISE, AND WHICH WOULD POINT OUT TO THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL. SO HOWEVER, WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A CLEAR FINDING, AND THE ASSESS EES CASE CANNOT BE DISMISSED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURNS HAVING NOT BEEN FILED. IN FACT, AS IT APPEARS, NO SPECIFIC CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THESE YEARS WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A); HE ADJUDICATING THE LIKE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 TO 1998-99. EVE N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SPECIFIC MENTION QUA THESE YEARS, OR EVEN IF THE INCOME FOR THESE YEARS WAS BELOW THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BEING NOT ON RECORD, WE ONLY CO NSIDER IT FIT AND PROPER TO, SETTING ASIDE HIS ORDER IN THE MATTER, RESTORE THE SAME BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY PASSING A SPEAKING O RDER, AND AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE IT(SS)A. NO.74/COCH./2005 5 OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES, I.E., I N CASE SUCH A GROUND STOOD IN FACT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L RAISED BEFORE HIM. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 7. THE FOURTH AND FINAL GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL IS IN RESPECT OF THE NON- EXCLUSION OF THE INCOME RETURNED FOR THE AYS 1996-9 7 TO 1999-2000. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS CREDIT FOR THE SAME ON THE BASIS THAT THE RE TURNS, EVEN THOUGH BELATED, STAND FILED MUCH BEFORE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 158BD. 8. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS MISCONCEIVED AND IT CASE FOR THE SAID YEARS WOULD STAND ON THE SAME FOOTING AS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS; THE RELE VANT DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCORDING SANCTITY AND RELEVANCE TO THE REGULAR RETURNS IN A CASE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION, WHERE THE DUE DATE THEREOF STANDS EXPIRED, IS THE DATE OF THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION AND NOT THAT OF NOTICE U/S. 158BC OR 158BD. AS SUCH, WHERE THE RETU RN FOR ANY YEAR STANDS NOT FILED BY ITS DUE DATE, WHICH IS THE CASE, NO CREDIT IN ITS R ESPECT COULD BE AVAILED EXCEPT AND TO THE EXTENT SPECIFIED UNDER CLAUSE (C) TO S. 158BB(1), D ISCUSSED HEREINBEFORE, WHERE THE CASE FALLS THEREUNDER, I.E., THE ASSESSEES INCOME IS EI THER AT A LOSS OR BELOW THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX. IN OTHER WORDS, WHERE IT IS NOT SO, I.E., THE INCOME IS AT OR ABOVE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX, THE SAME WOULD FALL UNDER CLAUSE (CA), AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY CREDI T IN ITS RESPECT; HE BEING OBLIGED BY THE LAW TO AND, THUS, OUGHT TO HAVE, FILED THE RETURN. THERE IS NO FINDING IN THE PRESENT CASE AS TO THE QUANTUM OF INCOME, WITH REFERENCE TO THE MAX IMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS, BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, A ND WHICH IS MATERIAL IN DECIDING THE CLAUSE, I.E., (C) OR (CA), UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE S CASE FALLS FOR EACH OF THE SAID YEARS, AND THUS THE CREDIT, IF ANY, TO WHICH IT CONSEQUENT LY IS IN LAW ENTITLED TO. ALSO, IN CASE THE INCOME IS BELOW THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT NOT CHARGEABLE T O TAX, SO THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE FALLS UNDER CLAUSE (C), THE CREDIT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE FULFILMENT OF THE CONDITION OF THE SAME BEING BORNE OUT OF THE DOCUMENTS OR RECORDS MA INTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, AS ALSO DISCUSSED AT PARA 6 ABOVE IN RELA TION TO AYS 1989-90 TO 1995-96. THERE BEING NO FINDING ON THESE RELEVANT ASPECTS, WE, SET TING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER, RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ISSUE PROP ER FINDINGS AND DECIDE THE MATTER IN IT(SS)A. NO.74/COCH./2005 6 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE TO STATE ITS CASE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 24TH JUNE, 2010 GJ COPY TO: 1. SMT. N.T. MARY, THERATTIL KOONAN HOUSE, LALOOR P .O., ELTHURUTHU, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL C IRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOCH I. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, KOCHI. 5. D.R./I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGIST RAR) IT(SS)A. NO.74/COCH./2005 7 FURTHER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE SAID FINDING WOULD ALS O REQUIRE A FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEES AGRICULTURE INCOME IS TO BE, FOR THE PUR POSE, TAKEN AT THAT DISCLOSED BY IT, OR AT THAT AS FINALLY ASSESSED. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH IS NOT ADMITTED AS SO, I.E., NOT ACCEPTED AS AN AGRICULTUR E INCOME, NOT ONLY BY THE REVENUE, BUT TILL THE STAGE OF THE FINAL FACT FINDING AUTHORITY, SO THAT THE ISSUE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE ATTAINED QUIETUS, BEING ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD O F INCOME `INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, WOULD BE TAKEN AT PAR WITH THE OTHER INCOME RETURNE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PRINCIPAL ADDITIONS WERE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULT URAL INCOME, I.E., AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEES INCOME FOR THE YEARS 1 989-90 TO 1998-99, REGULAR RETURNS IN RESPECT OF WHICH STOOD EITHER NOT FILED OR STOOD FI LED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE PRINCIPAL ADDITIONS WERE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULT URAL INCOME, I.E., AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEES INCOME FOR THE YEARS 1 989-90 TO 1998-99, REGULAR RETURNS IN RESPECT OF WHICH STOOD EITHER NOT FILED OR STOOD FI LED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE BACKGROUND FACTS WOULD BE RELEVANT AND THEREFOR E, NEED TO BE RECOUNTED. IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, MATERIALS RELATING TO INVESTM ENTS BY THE ASSESSEE IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO CHITTIES WERE FOUND . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR VARI OUS YEARS INCLUDED IN THE BLOCK PERIOD REFLECTING THE GROSS CASH INFLOW FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 3,82,720 FOR PREVIOUS YEARS RELEVANT TO 1989-90 TO 1998-99 AND FOR THE BR OKEN PERIOD 1.4.1998 TO 28.9.1998. THE CLAIM WAS DE HORS ANY RECORDS OR DOCUMENTS. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE AO FINDING ASSESSEES RETURNED FIGURE ON AHIGHER SIDE, ESTIMAT ED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 20,000/- PER ANNUM FOR A.Y. 1989-90 TO 1993-94, I.E ., AT RS. 2,37,800 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD, BRINGING THE BALANCE AT RS. 1,45,220/- TO T AX AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A) ON A CONCEPTUS CASE FOUND THE ASSESSEES REP ORTED YIELD ON ITS LAND HOLDING OF 65 CENTS AS FAR BEYOND ACCEPTABLE. HE, THEREFORE, CON FIRMED THE AOS ESTIMATE. THE ASSESSEES OTHER INCOME IS BY WAY OF INCOME FR OM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY AND FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH ARE NORMALLY DOCUMENTED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE, THEREFORE, ONLY CONSIDER IT FIT AND PROPER UNDER TH E CIRCUMSTANCES TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECORD RELE VANT FINDINGS AND DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING PROPER HEARING T O THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF INCOME BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO CAUSE FOR GRIEVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE, EVEN THOUGH HE HAS RE FERRED TO SUB CLAUSE (CA) OF SECTION 158BB(1), HIS DIRECTION IS DEFINITE BOTH AS ITS MEANING AND SCOPE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON T O INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER. IT(SS)A. NO.74/COCH./2005 8 BY ORDER (ASSISTA NT REGISTRAR)