ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI v. MONSANTO INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1209/MUM/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 120919914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACM2875L
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1209/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant ADDL CIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI
Respondent MONSANTO INDIA LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted J
Tribunal Order Date 28-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 19-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 19-01-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 15-02-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'J' BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1075/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) M/S. MONSANTO INDIA LTD. ADDL. CIT RANGE 8(2) AHURA CENTRE 5TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD 96 MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD VS. MUMBAI 400020 ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 400093 PAN - AAACM 2875 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1209/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) DCIT RANGE 8(2) M/S. MONSANTO INDIA LTD. AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD AHURA CENTRE 5TH FLOOR MUMBAI 400020 VS. 96 MAHAKALI CAVES ROAD ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI 400093 PAN - AAACM 2875 L PAN - AAACM 2875 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: SHRI RAJAN VORA & MS. PRITI SHAH REVENUE BY: SMT. KUSUM INGLE O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH A.M. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS BY ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- XVII MUMBAI DATED 10.11.2009 2. THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS WITH REFERENCE TO DISALLOWANCE OF AN AMOUNT OF ` 55 15 000/- UNDER SECTION 14A APPLYING THE PROVISIO NS OF RULE 8D. 3. THE A.O. ON NOTICING THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED DIVIDEND INCOME OF ` 6 12 95 164/- AS EXEMPT DISALLOWED ` 55 15 000/- HOLDING THAT THE EXPENSES ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME. THE MAT TER WAS CARRIED TO THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE INVOKING RULE 8D. ITA NOS. 1075 & 1209/MUM/2010 M/S. MONSANTO INDIA LTD. 2 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.COUNSEL WHO SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER HAS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO AS THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS HAS BEEN CONSI DERED AND DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT 328 ITR 81. THE A.O. HAS TO CONSIDER THE D ISALLOWANCE AT A REASONABLE AMOUNT WITH OUT RESORTING TO THE RULE 8D . ACCORDINGLY THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO CONSI DER THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A KEEPING IN MIND THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW AS ESTABLISHED BY THE JUDICIAL FORUMS AND RE-DETERMINE THE REASONABLE AMOUNT AS DISALLOWANCE. 5. THE ISSUE IN REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(1) ON THE INCOME OF ` 44 85 20 568/- ARISING FROM SEEDS DIVISION TREATING IT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INCOME OF ` 45.85 20 568/- ARISING FROM SEEDS DIVISION TO BE EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(1). ON BEING ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VIDE LETTERS DATED 25.08.2008 AND 25.11.2008 THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY GROWS SEED S WITH THE HELP OF FARMERS UNDER A SEEDS PRODUCTION AGREEMENT. AS PER THE AGREEMENT THE FARMERS CARRY OUT VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES U NDER THE GUIDANCE AND SUPERVISION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE I S ENTITLED TO CARRY OUT OR DIRECT THE FARMERS TO CARRY OUT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVI TIES CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR THE BETTER PRODUCTION OF SEEDS. IT IS FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS A BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND TO CARRY OUT ITS AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AS THE FARMER AGREES TO ALLOW EXCLUSIVE USE OF THEIR L AND TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSES SEE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJA BENOY KUMAR S HAHAS ROY 32 ITR 466 (SC) AND CIT VS. ASSOCIATED METAL CO. 177 ITR 428 ( ALL) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE INCOME DERIVED BY IT FROM GROWING AND SELL ING HYBRID SEEDS BY CARRYING OUT THE ABOVE MENTIONED ACTIVITIES IS AGRI CULTURAL INCOME AND IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE I.T. ACT. ASSESSE E ALSO MADE REFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN EARLIER YEARS WHEREIN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED. THE A.O. DI D NOT AGREE WITH THE ITA NOS. 1075 & 1209/MUM/2010 M/S. MONSANTO INDIA LTD. 3 CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE TREATED THE AMOUNT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO OWNERSHIP OF LAND NO NEXUS BETWEEN INCOME DERIVED FROM LAND/ AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND BUSI NESS OF THE ASSESSEE OF MANUFACTURING HYBRID SEEDS. HE WAS OF THE OPINION T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED THAT THE INCOME FALLS UNDER SECTION 2(1) (A) AND THAT ALL ACTIVITIES HAVING CONNECTION WITH LAND WOULD TO AMOUNT TO AGRI CULTURE. BEFORE THE CIT(A) ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEF ORE THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE CIT (A) FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CAS E FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 2003-04 AND 2004-05 ALLOWED EXEMPTION UND ER SECTION 10(1) AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R. AND THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 2 003-04 & 2004-05 AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN IT A NO. 6093/MUM/2007 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: - 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE US THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE D ECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1993-94 TO 2003-04 COPIES OF THE RELEVANT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE ISSUE HAS EXTENSIVELY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN ITA NOS.286 & 287/BANG/03 307 TO 309/BANG/02 AND 1070 1895 & 1896/BANG/04 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.11.2007. THE RELE VANT FACTS ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 4 TO 4.1 OF THE ORDER. WE REPROD UCE PARA NOS. 4 4.1 AND 10 TO 18 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER:- 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED IN THE YEAR 1988 FOR PRODUCTION OF HIG H YIELDING HYBRID SEEDS. IN TERMS OF THE APPROVAL OF THE FOREIGN INVESTMENT PRO MOTION BOARD (FIPB) DATED 24.6.84 THE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF HYBRID SEEDS. THE COMPANY WITH THE HELP OF FARM ERS CARRIES OUT THE PRODUCTION OF HYBRID SEEDS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSES SEE GROWING OF HYBRID SEEDS INVOLVES CARRYING OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS JOINTLY WITH THE LAND OWNERS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENTERS INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE LAND OWNERS FOR USING THEIR LAND. THE LAND OWNERS REMAIN THE LE GAL OWNERS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEY ALLOW THE USAGE OF LAND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE GROWING OF HYBRID SEEDS. THE FARMERS (LAND OWNERS) AGREED TO ASSIST THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES UNDER THE SU PERVISION OF COMPANYS SUPERVISORS. BEFORE SELECTING FARMERS WHO OWN THE A GRICULTURAL LAND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION FACTORS S UCH AS QUALITY OF LAND QUALITY OF SOIL LOCATION OF VILLAGE TRACK RECORDS OF FARMERS AND CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ETC. ITA NOS. 1075 & 1209/MUM/2010 M/S. MONSANTO INDIA LTD. 4 4.1 AFTER SELECTING THE FARMERS THE COMPANY ENTERS INTO SEED PRODUCTION AGREEMENT WITH THE FARMERS TO JOINTLY CARRY OUT THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS UNDER THE CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OF THE COMPANY. THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE AGREEMENT ARE AS UNDER: (A) THE FARMER IS THE SOLE AND ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE AG RICULTURAL LAND. (B) THE COMPANY HAVING THE TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW NECESSARY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF HYBRID SEEDS ENTERS INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE F ARMER FOR UTILIZING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO THE FARMER. (C) THE FARMER AGREES THAT THE LAND WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THE COMPANYS HYBRID SEEDS. IN OTHER WORDS THE AGREEMENT GIVES BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP OF LANDS TO TH E COMPANY TO CARRY OUT ITS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. (D) THE FARMER SHALL PROVIDE MANPOWER IN CARRYING OUT I TS AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS SUCH AS LAND PREPARATION PLANTING IRRI GATION FUNGICIDE PESTICIDE AND HARVESTING ON THE LAND UNDER THE SUPE RVISION OF THE COMPANY. (E) THE COMPANY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CARRY OUT OR DIRE CT THE FARMER TO CARRY OUT ALL SUCH ACTIVITIES SUCH AS USE OF FERTILIZER PESTICIDES ETC. WHICH ARE CONSIDERED NECESSARY BY IT FOR THE BETTER PRODUCTIO N OF THE PRODUCE. (F) FURTHER THE FARMER SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE READY AND WILLING TO CARRY OUT SPECIFIC TASKS ASSIGNED BY THE COMPANY FROM TIME TO TIME SHOULD BE CALLED TO DO SO. THE FAILURE OF THE FARMER TO CARRY OUT TH E TASKS ASSIGNED BY THE COMPANY WITH ENTITLE THE COMPANY TO CARRY OUT THE S AME AT THE COST OF THE FARMER WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE CONTRIBUTION OF LABO UR. (G) THE AGREEMENT CATEGORICALLY STATES THAT ALL PRODUCE FROM THE LAND DURING THE PRODUCTION PERIOD SHALL EXCLUSIVELY BELONG ONLY TO THE COMPANY. THE LANDOWNER CUM FARMER SHALL HAVE NO RIGHT AND SHALL HAVE NO LIEN OVER THE PRODUCE. (H) THE COMPANY SHALL HAVE TOTAL ACCESS TO THE LAND AT ANY TIME TO SUPERVISE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES INSPECT AND TESTING. THE F ARMERS SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT THE SERVANTS AGENTS AND THE OFFICERS OF THE COMPAN Y TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE LAND. THESE FACTS ARE ENUMERATED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) AT PAGES 2 TO 4. 10 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED T HEM CAREFULLY. AFTER EXAMINING THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND C IT(A) WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A). THESE A RE UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON THE SAME ACTIVITY FOR AY 90-91 ONWARDS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 90-91 THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEGATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO AFTER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE I N DETAIL ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF DOING AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENTS FOR AY 91-92 AND 92-93 WERE PASSED U/S1 43(3) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. HOWEVER THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEGATED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY ASSESSING THE RECEIPTS AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS AGAINST AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSMENTS FOR AY 96-97 ITA NOS. 1075 & 1209/MUM/2010 M/S. MONSANTO INDIA LTD. 5 AND 97-98 WERE REOPENED U/S 147/148. THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 24.12.2000 REQUESTING THE AO TO TREAT THE RETURN AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION THAT THE ACTIVITY D ONE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AS IN HIS VIEW THESE ARE COM MERCIAL ACTIVITIES THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ASSESSMENT BY HOLDING THAT THE RECEIPTS ARE OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS AGAINST AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE. 11 SIMILARLY FOR OTHER YEARS I.E. AY 93-94 TO 2000- 01 THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED ALL THE RECEIPTS AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS AGAIN ST THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E BY HOLDING THAT THE FACTS IN BOTH THE AYS I.E. AY 96-97 AND 97-98 ARE IDENTIC AL TO THE FACTS OF EARLIER YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ALLA HABAD HIGH COURT IN 197 ITR 428 (SUPRA) WHEREIN IDENTICAL FACTS WERE INVOLV ED AS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY HIS PREDECESSOR FOR AY 93-94 TO 95-96. ACCORDINGLY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) FOR THESE TWO YEARS ALSO. 12 WE FURTHER NOTED THAT BANGALORE B BENCH IN TH E CASE OF INDO AMERICAN EXPORTS IN ITA NO. 1040/BANG/2002 FOR AY 98-99 AND IN THE CASE OF NAMDHARI SEEDS PVT LTD IN ITA NO.3102/BANG /2004 FOR AY 2001-02 HAS DECIDED IDENTICAL ISSUES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN THESE CASES ALSO THE ASSESSEES HAVE ENTERED INTO IDENTICAL CONTRACT WITH AGRICULTURISTS AND PROVIDE THEM WITH HYBRID VEGETABLE SEEDS. THE LAND HOLDINGS OF THE AGRICULTURIST EXTEND FROM 0.75 ACRES TO A MAXIMUM O F 2 ACRES. THE AGRICULTURISTS ARE REQUIRED TO UNDERTAKE CULTIVATIO N OF THE SEEDS IN THEIR LAND IN ORDER TO MULTIPLY THEM. THE CONTRACT PERIO D WAS ALSO MENTIONED. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUPPLIES THE PARENTS OF THE HY BRID VIZ THE MALE AND FEMALE SEEDS OR SEEDLING TO THE CONTRACT GROWER. TH E RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS. THE A SSESSING OFFICER NEGATED THE CLAIM OF THESE ASSESSEES BY OBSERVING THAT THE LAND BELONGING TO THE FARMER IN THEIR OWN RIGHT AS OWNER/TERM LESSEE AND WAS IN THE POSSESSION AND CULTIVATION. BY FURTHER OBSERVING THAT THE CON TRACT ENTERED CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT 1961( KLRA) AND SUCH CONDITIONS PREVAILED UNDER KLRA PRESCRIBED IN THE C ONTRACT WILL NOT PREVAIL OVER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WHILE NEGATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO OBSERVED CERTAIN FURTHER OBJECTIONS. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THESE ASSESSES BY OBSERVING THAT THE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THESE ASSES SES ARE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE TRIB UNAL HELD THAT THE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS. T HE TRIBUNAL HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL. THE MEANING OF AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME HAS ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED AND BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECIS ION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADDI VENKATASUBBAYYA IN 20 I TR 151 AND IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED METAL CO IN 177 ITR 428(ALLD) WHERE THE FACTS WERE IDENTICAL DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE D ECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJA BENOY KUMAR SAHAS ROY IN 32 ITR 466 WAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIBUNAL. WHILE D ISCUSSING THE RATIO OF THESE DECISIONS IN DETAIL THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ON ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH FARMERS THE RECEIPT S SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT TH E CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF INDO AMERICAN EXPORTS AND NAM DHARI SEEDS PVT LTD (SUPRA) HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECI SION OF THE CIT(A) IN THE ITA NOS. 1075 & 1209/MUM/2010 M/S. MONSANTO INDIA LTD. 6 CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) TH AT THE FACTS IN THE CASE IN HAND AND THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF MONSANTO INDIA L TD (THE ASSESSEE) ARE IDENTICAL. THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN NOTED BY THE TRIB UNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF INDO AMERICAN EXPORTS AND NAM DHARI SEEDS PVT LTD (SUPRA) AT PAGE 7 OF ITS ORDER. THIS ORDER WAS PASS ED ON 14.7.2006 AT BANGALORE. 12.1 THE LD DR HAS RAISED A CONTENTION THAT BY ENT ERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FARMERS THE ASSESSEE HAS CREATED VALUE BA SED ADDITIONS IN ITS CAPITAL THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS AGRICU LTURAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN OUR VIEW THESE CONTENTION OF THE LD DR CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTER ED INTO AGREEMENT WITH VARIOUS FARMERS WHO CULTIVATED THE LAND AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT. THE SEEDS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY WERE USED FOR CULTIVATING THE LAND AND WHATEVER THE PRODUCT PRODU CED THE SAME WAS SHOWN AS SOLD IN THE MARKET BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT. WHATEVER THE SHARE OF THE FARMER WAS THE RE THAT WAS GIVEN TO THEM AS PER THE CLAUSES OF AGREEMENT. THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT WHATEVER THE RECEIPTS WERE THERE THEY WERE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICUL TURAL ACTIVITIES AND HAVE TO BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS. 13 THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIAT ED METAL (SUPRA) HAS DECIDED IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE ALSO THE LAND WAS CULTIVATED BY THE FARMERS AS PER AGREEMENT CLAU SES AND WHATEVER THE PRODUCES WERE THERE THAT WERE TREATED IN THE HANDS OF THE LESSOR. 14 ALL OTHER CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LD AR HAVE AL READY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE AP PEAL IN CASE OF M/S NAMDHARI SEEDS (SUPRA) THEREFORE WITHOUT GOING IN TO DETAIL FURTHER WE HOLD THAT THE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGRIC ULTURAL RECEIPTS AND THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE. 15 IN VIEW OF RULE OF CONSISTENCY ALSO THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED AS FOR AY 1990-91 TO 92-93 THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS OR IN CIRCUMSTANCES; THEREFORE RULE OF CONSISTENCY WILL BE APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE. 16 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHAS WAMY IN 193 ITR 325 HAS HELD THAT IF THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS THEN RULE OF CONSISTENCY WILL PREVAIL UPON. MANY HIGH COURTS HAVE ALSO HELD SO. 17 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SUPRE ME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURTS WE HOLD THAT EVEN IN VIEW OF CONSISTENCY TH ERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) WHO HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE OR DER OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR THESE TWO YEARS. 18 THE FACTS IN THE REMAINING YEARS ARE IDENTICAL THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE REASONING DISCUSSED ABOVE WE CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR THE REMAINING YEARS ALSO. 4. SINCE THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IS IN ACCORD WI TH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEA RS (SUPRA) WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE. 5. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISS ED. ITA NOS. 1075 & 1209/MUM/2010 M/S. MONSANTO INDIA LTD. 7 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE COORDIN ATE BENCHES IN EARLIER YEARS WE REJECT THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 28 TH JANUARY 2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) XVII MUMBAI 4. THE CIT VIII MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR J BENCH ITAT MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI N.P.