Shri K. Sengottaiyan, CHENNAI V. ITO, Erode

MA 245/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5377 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B / SMC BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NOS. 243 TO 245/MDS/2016 [ IN I.T.A. NOS. 1015 TO 1017/MDS/2014] ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2011-12 SHRI K. SENGOTTAIYAN C/O. M/S. SUBBARAYA AIYAR PADMANABHAN & RAMAMANI ADVOCATES, NEW NO.75, OLD NO.105, DR. RADHAKRISHNA SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. PAN: BEUPS3598L V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (5), ERODE ( APPLICANT) ( / RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 03.02.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.02.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 24.08.2016. 2. SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 , THE APPEAL OF 2 M.A. NO. 243 TO 245/MDS/2016 THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PRAYER FROM THE ASSESSEE TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 140 DAYS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICAT ION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE LD. COUNSE L HAS PRODUCED THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR FILING THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONAT ION OF DELAY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, ACCORDINGLY THE SAME N EEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 3. IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 24.08.2014, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE DELETED. PARA 2: THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN I .T.A. NO.1017/MDS/2016 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. IN FACT, THE REGISTRY HAS ISSUED A DEFECT MEMO POINTIN G OUT THE DELAY OF 140 DAYS. INSPITE OF THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. SINCE THERE IS NO PRAYER FROM THE ASSESSEE TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 140 DAYS IN FI LING THE APPEAL, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS NOT MAI NTAINABLE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO.1017/ MDS/2016 IS DISMISSED. 3 M.A. NO. 243 TO 245/MDS/2016 4. INSTEAD THE FOLLOWING IS BEING INSERTED: FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN I.T.A. NO.1017/MDS/2016, THERE WAS A DELAY OF 140 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. HAVING HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE AND THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I FIND THA T THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL DU RING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE 140 DAYS DE LAY IN FILING THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS CONDO NED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED. 5. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER YEARS, SHRI VIJAYARAGHA VAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHILE ESTIM ATING THE INCOME FROM COCONUT, THE HUSK WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERA TION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE IS A DEMAND FOR THE COCON UT HUSK IN THE MARKET. THE RATE OF THE HUSK VARIOUS FROM 1.20 TO 1.25 PER COCONUT HUSK. THIS WAS SUPPORTED BY COIR & COIR PR ODUCTS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF ERODE DISTRICT, ERODE. REFERRING TO THE COCONUT YIELD, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE A GE OF THE COCONUT TREE IS 19 YEARS AS PER THE TECHNICAL REPORT FILED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DED UCTED 5% FROM THE YIELD OF THE COCONUT EVERY YEAR WHICH IS NOT CO RRECT. THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ACC URATE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, EVERY STANDING COCONU T TREE WOULD 4 M.A. NO. 243 TO 245/MDS/2016 YIELD 240 NUTS PER TREE. THEREFORE, THERE IS AN ER ROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL AFTER T AKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE AREA OF CULTIVATION AND THE NU MBER OF TREES FOUND THAT EACH COCONUT WOULD YIELD 100 TO 120 NUTS IN A YEAR. THE COST OF THE COCONUT WHICH WAS PREVAILING IN THE MAR KET AT THAT TIME WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.5 PER COCONUT. ACCORDINGLY, TH IS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A RE RS.22,41,785 IS JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE O RDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS TRI BUNAL HAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CULTIVATED 12.55 ACRES OF LAN D IN JAMBAI VILLAGE AND 25.71 ACRES OF LAND IN ORICHERI VILLAGE . THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATED 860 COCONUT TREES IN JAMBAI VILLAGE AND 1837 COCONUT TREES IN ORICHERI VILLAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N FACT ESTIMATED THE YIELD FROM COCONUT TREE IN ORICHERI VILLAGE AT 201 PER TREE PER YEAR. IN JAMBAI VILLAGE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE YIELD OF THE COCONUT AT 92 PER TREE PER YEAR. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ESTIMATION 5 M.A. NO. 243 TO 245/MDS/2016 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE AVERAGE YIELD OF THE COCONUT IS ONLY 100 TO 120 NUTS PER YE AR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE YIELD VERY FAIRLY. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE RATE OF THE COCONUT PREVAILING RATE WAS RS.5 PER COCONUT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS FOUND TO BE VERY FAIR AND REASONABLE. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNA L. THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS HAVE NO MERIT AT ALL. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 DESERVES T O BE DISMISSED ON MERIT. HOWEVER, THERE IS AN ERROR AT PARA 3 OF THIS ORDER ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS RECTIFIED. AT PARA 3 THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE DELETED. NOW COMING TO OTHER YEARS. HOWEVER THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INSERTED IN THE PARA 3. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF APPEAL FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IS RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. THE OTHER PARA OF THE ORDER SHALL REMAIN AS SUCH. 6 M.A. NO. 243 TO 245/MDS/2016 9. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, / DATED, THE 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2017. JR. /COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT, 5. ! /DR 6. '#$ /GF.