ITO, Bangalore v. Smt. V. Ramamani, Bangalore

ITA 11/BANG/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1121114 RSA 2010
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 11/BANG/2010
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Bangalore
Respondent Smt. V. Ramamani, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 06-05-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 04-01-2010
Judgment Text
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE DR. O.K NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.11/BANG/2010 (AS ST. YEAR -2006-07) INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2) BANGALORE. . APPELLANT VS. SMT. V RAMAMANI NO.24/1 ADARSH COMPLEXL CRESCENT ROAD HIGH GROUNDS BANGALORE-560 001. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.R VASUDEVA MURTHY RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JACINTA ZIMIK VASHAI ADDL. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX O R D E R PER DR. O.K NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006-07. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) II AT BANGALORE DATED 9/10/2009. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT 1961. ITA NO.11/B/10 2 2. THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THI S APPEAL IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WENT WRONG IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13 90 485/- WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHE HAS REP ORTED AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.13 90 485/-. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DISCREDITED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDIN G THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FIRS T APPEAL THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE SAID ADDITION. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND THEREFORE THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DETAIL. EVEN THOUGH THE CIT(A) HAS REASONABLY EXPLAINED THE GROUNDS FOR HIS DECISION HE HAS NOT CATEGORICALLY DEALT WITH THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS RA ISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE PAUCITY OF EVIDENCES TO SUPPO RT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AT THE SAME TIME IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT THE AG RICULTURAL INCOME OUT OF THE BLUE. THERE ARE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCES T O SHOW THAT THE FIRM ITA NO.11/B/10 3 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER OWNS SUBSTANTIA L EXTENT OF COFFEE PLANTATION AND SAID FIRM IS EARNING SUBSTANTIAL AMO UNT OF INCOME FROM COFFEE. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS EARNED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE NATURE OF SHARE OF INCOME IN THE SAID FIRM WHICH IS CARRY ING ON AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THE EXISTENCE OF THE FIRM IS PROVED BY THE PARTNERSHIP DEED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND EARLIER ASSESSMENT RECO RDS. THE HOLDING OF THE LAND IS ALSO SAID TO BE PROVED BY THE DOCUME NTS OF TITLE. WHAT IS REMAINING TO BE PROVED IS THE FACT OF CARRYING ON O F AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND EARNING INCOME THERE FOR THE RELEVAN T PREVIOUS YEAR. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FIRM HAS PRODU CED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IF THE FIRM HAS PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEN THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT KEEP SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR HERSELF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN VERIFY THE ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM. FURTHER AS A MAT TER OF FACT COFFEE PLANTATION IS AN ENDURING CROP AND IF IN THE EARLIE R ASSESSMENT YEAR THE FACTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ACCEPTED IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE SAID CLAIM CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE FO R THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS IF THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING ON SOME SEASONABLE CROPS LIKE PADDY OR VEGETABLES. COFFEE IS A STABLE CROP. ALL THESE ASPECTS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE WAY AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. ITA NO.11/B/10 4 5. WHEN BASIC MATERIALS REGARDING POSSESSION OF COF FEE PLANTATION AND EARNING OF INCOME ARE ESTABLISHED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT TH E OPERATIONAL DETAILS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONE HAS TO REMEMBER THAT THE FIRM HAS MAINTAINED SU CH OPERATIONAL DETAILS. 6. THEREFORE TO BE FAIR AND JUDICIOUS WE SET ASID E THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND REMIT BACK THE FILE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM AND FIND OUT THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME THAT HAS BEEN ALLOTTED TO HER. IF SUCH DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE-DO THE A SSESSMENT AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. ITA NO.11/B/10 5 8. IN RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 2010 AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (DR. O.K NARAYANAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT VMS. COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF 7..GF ITAT NEW DELHI. BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALOR E.