The ITO, Ward-3(2),, Visakhapatnam v. Sri UV Ramana Murthy Raju,, Visakhapatnam

ITA 555/VIZ/2008 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 55525314 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAFPU6285N
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 555/VIZ/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-3(2),, Visakhapatnam
Respondent Sri UV Ramana Murthy Raju,, Visakhapatnam
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 06-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 06-09-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 03-11-2008
Judgment Text
ITA NOS.551 TO 555 OF 2008 UV RAMANA MURTHY RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 551 TO 555/VIZAG/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 TO 2006-07 ITO WARD-3(2) VISAKHAPATNAM VS. U.V.RAMANA MURTHY RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) PAN NO: AAFPU 6285 N APPELLANT BY: SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.S. RAJU C.A ORDER PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 25-8-2008 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) VISA KHAPATNAM AND THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2006-07. SINCE THE ISSUE URGED IN THESE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL IN NATURE ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS REDUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE DIFFERENCE WAS TREATED AS THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US FOR ALL THESE YEARS ASSAILING THE DECISION OF LEARNED CIT(A). 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERAT ION ARE SET OUT IN BRIEF. THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NOS.551 TO 555 OF 2008 UV RAMANA MURTHY RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 2 OF 10 ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE YEARS UND ER CONSIDERATION ARE TABLED BELOW: ASSESSMENT YEAR RETURNED AGRIL. INCOME ASSESSED AGRIL. INCOME 2002-03 6 42 850 3 90 000 2003-04 7 45 500 4 16 000 2004-05 9 18 700 4 68 000 2005-06 10 21 580 4 94 000 2006-07 11 25 000 5 20 000 DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF 26 ACRES OF AGRICULTURE LAND HAVING COCONUT FARMS AT P EDATEENARLA VILLAGE OF NAKKAPALLI MANDAL. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE ONLY A CERTIFICATE DATED 20- 12-2007 OBTAINED FROM TEHSILDAR NAKKAPALLI MANDAL IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAI M OF AVAILABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT DECLARED BY HIM. IN THE SAID CERTIFICATE THE TEHSILDAR HAD CERTIFIED THE PROBABLE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME AT RS.10 92 000/- ON THE BASIS OF A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY A HORTICULT URAL OFFICER. THE SAID ESTIMATE WAS ALSO NOT ANY YEAR SPECIFIC. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE SAID CERTIFICATE SINCE HE FELT THAT TH E CERTIFICATE OF TAHSILDAR DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION A ND FURTHER THE TAHSILDAR HAS CERTIFIED ONLY THE PROBABLE INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THE AO ESTIMATED THE IN COME AS DETAILED ABOVE. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETURNED AND ASSE SSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS TAKEN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE LEARNED CIT(A) THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAD E FURTHER ENQUIRIES AS DETAILED BELOW:- ITA NOS.551 TO 555 OF 2008 UV RAMANA MURTHY RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 3 OF 10 (A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX TO MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AND SUBMIT REPORT. THE INS PECTOR ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT RS.3 360/- PER ACRE. SUBSEQUENTLY IN A SECOND REMAND REPORT THE SAID ESTIMATE WAS INCREASED TO RS.5 080/- PER A CRE. (B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CAUSED NECESSARY E NQUIRIES WITH THE TAHSILDAR WHO CERTIFIED VIDE HIS CERTIFICATE DATE D 19-3-2008 THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS UNDER ON THE BASIS OF THE ES TIMATE PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER. S.NO S.NO EXTENT AC.CTS CLASSIFICATION TREES PER AC YEAR INCOME OF RS. 1 19 26.00 DRY 55 2002 3 14 600/- 2 2003 2 86 000/- 3 2004 3 53 000/- 4 2005 3 14 600/- 5 2006 3 53 200/- TOTAL 18 21 600/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXPRESSED HIS OPINION THAT TH E INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE TAHSILDAR HAS TO BE REDUCED FURTHER TOWARDS THE EXPENSE WHICH WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.100/- PER TREE. 4.1 WHEN THIS REMAND REPORT WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSEE BY LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO CROSS VERIF Y THOSE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE INSPECTOR HAD COLLECTED THE DETAILS. HOWEV ER THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPORTED THAT THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE INS PECTOR HAD COLLECTED THE DETAILS HAD DECLINED TO DISCLOSE THEIR RESPECTI VE IDENTITIES AS THEY WERE NOT READY TO RUIN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASSESSE E AS HE IS A VERY INFLUENTIAL PERSON IN THAT AREA. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX HAS BEEN COLLECTED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE IT CANNO T BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS IT VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ITA NOS.551 TO 555 OF 2008 UV RAMANA MURTHY RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 4 OF 10 4.2 WITH REGARD TO THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19-3-2 008 OBTAINED FROM THE TAHSILDAR WHICH IS IN CONTRADICTION WITH THE EARLI ER CERTIFICATE DATED 20-12- 2007 THE LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO OBTAIN NECESSARY CLARIFICATION FROM THE TAHSILDAR. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT CLARIFICATION IN THIS REGARD. THE TAHSILDAR VIDE H IS LETTER DATED 09-8-2008 CLARIFIED THAT THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER IS NOT A COMPETENT PERSON TO ESTIMATE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HENCE THE CERTIFIC ATE DATED 19-3-2008 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ACCORDINGLY THE TAHSILDAR CLARIFIE D THAT CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 20-12-2007 IS ACCEPTABLE AS IT IS BASED ON THE REPO RT OF THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER. 4.3 BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE ALSO P RODUCED A CERTIFICATE DATED 15.5.2008 OBTAINED FROM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER NARSIPATNAM WHO ALSO CERTIFIED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.10 92 000/- ON THE BASIS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER. THE L EARNED CIT(A) BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE CERTIFICATE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL O FFICER HELD THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D BE ACCEPTED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE D IFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOMES WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES WERE ALSO DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LEARNED AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE HEAVILY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A). THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO FURNISHED A COPY OF NEWS PAPER REPORT OF THE NEWS PAPER NAMED THE HINDU IN ITS ONLINE EDITION DATED NOVEMBER 21 2002 TO SUPPORT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HORTI CULTURE OFFICER. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ESTIMATE PROJECTED BY THE HORTIC ULTURE IS IN LINE WITH THE SAID NEWS PAPER REPORT AND HENCE THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE FOLLOWING CASE LAW TO SUBMIT THAT THE REPORT OF THE EXPERT HAS TO BE ACCE PTED UNLESS IT IS SHOWN TO BE WRONG. ITA NOS.551 TO 555 OF 2008 UV RAMANA MURTHY RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 5 OF 10 (A) PINGLE VENKATARAMA REDDY VS CWT (85 ITR 132)(A .P) (B) SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE V CIT (237 ITR 1)(SUPREME COURT) 6. ON THE CONTRARY LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS APPARENT CONTRADICTION AND HUGE DIFFERENCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME BETWEEN THE TWO CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE VERY SAM E TAHSILDAR ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND HENCE THE SAID CERTIFICATES CAN NOT TAKEN AS A RELIABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO ASCERTAIN THE AGRICUL TURAL INCOME REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE TAHSILDAR HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 20.12.2007 IS ACCEPT ABLE YET THE TAHSILDAR HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE GROUND FACTS WHILE ISSUI NG SUCH A CLARIFICATION. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.12.2 007 IS BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF A HORTICULTURE OFFICER WHO HAS REPO RTED THE YIELD OF COCONUT TREES IN AN IDEAL CONDITION I.E. THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER HAS NOT ISSUED THE CERTIFICATE BASED ON THE ACTUAL VERIFICATION OF THE TREES. WHEREAS THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.3.2008 WAS ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF REALISTIC DATA COLLECTED BY THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER THOUGH HE MAY NOT BE A COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME. BESIDES THE ABOV E THE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX HAS ALSO CONDUCTED FIELD ENQUIRIES AND HA S GIVEN A REPORT WHICH SHOULD NOT BE DISCOUNTED WITH EASILY. THE LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO FURNISHED A COPY OF PAMPHLET IS SUED BY THE COCONUT DEVELOPMENT BOARD MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE GOVERNM ENT OF INDIA WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT AN AVERAGE YIELD OF 80 TO 100 NUTS O R MORE CAN BE EXPECTED WHEN IRRIGATION FACILITIES ARE ALSO PROVIDED. ACCO RDINGLY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE ES TIMATE OF YIELD OF 200 250 NUTS MADE BY THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER IS TOTALL Y UNREALISTIC. LEARNED D.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE OFFICIALS INCLUD ING THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER HAVE ISSUED THE CERTIFICATE PURELY ON THE B ASIS OF THE ESTIMATE OF A HORTICULTURE OFFICE AND THEY ARE NOT BASED ON ANY F IELD VISITS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO FORWARD THE COPY OF CERTIFICAT E CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR ITA NOS.551 TO 555 OF 2008 UV RAMANA MURTHY RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 6 OF 10 VERIFICATION. THUS THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CARE FULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. AS NOTICED EARLIER THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS WELL AS T HE ASSESSEE HAS HEAVILY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE R EVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND THE TAHSILDAR. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE THA T BOTH THE CERTIFICATES ARE BASED ON THE REPORT OF A HORTICULTURE OFFICER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE REPRODUCE BELOW THE CERTIFICATE DAT ED 20.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR AND ALSO THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER. (A) TAHSILDARS CERTIFICATE DATED 20-12-2007 INCOME CERTIFICATE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT SHRI U.V. RAMANA MURTHY RAJ U S/O (LATE) RAJAN RAJU OF VISAKHAPATNAM PREVIOUSLY HELD AN EXTENT OF AC 26.00 CTS IN S.NO.19 AT PEDATEENARLA V ILLAGE OF NAKKAPALLI MANDAL WITH PLANTATION OF COCONUT TILL THE SALE OF THE LAND TAKEN PLACE IN FEBRUARY 2007. THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER HAS ISSUED CERTIFICATE THAT THERE MAY BE A GROSS INCOME OF RS.42 000/- PER ACRE IF ALL THE SEASONAL CONDITIONS AND GOOD MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WERE ADOPTED. AT THAT RATE THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER ARRIVED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10 92 000/- (RUPEES TEN LAKHS NI NTY TWO THOUSAND ONLY) PER ACRE TILL THE LANDS WERE UNDER H IS OWNERSHIP. ACCORDINGLY BASING ONLY ON THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER NAKKAPALLI DT. 20.12.07 THIS INCOME CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED WITH A PROBABLE INCOME OF RS.10 92 000/- (RUPEES TEN LAKHS NINTY TWO THOUSAND ONLY) IN FAVOUR OF SRI U.V. RAMANAMURTHY RAJU GARU. SD/- TAHSILDAR NAKKAPALLI MANDAL (B) CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER: CERTIFICATE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT SRI U.V.RAMAMAMURTHY RAJU S /O (LATE) RAJAN RAJU OF VISAKHAPATNAM GROWNED 26 ACRES OF COCONUT GARDEN IN PEDATEENARLA REVENUE VIDE NO.19. IF ITA NOS.551 TO 555 OF 2008 UV RAMANA MURTHY RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 7 OF 10 ALL THE SEASONAL CONDITIONS AND GOOD MANAGEMENTAL PROCEDURES WERE ADAPTED HE MIGHT HAVE GOT YIELD AND INCOME AS DETAILED BELOW: I) EXTENT - 26 ACRES COCONUT II) NO.OF PALM/ACRE- 90 III) YIELD/PALM/YEAR-200-250 WELL GROWNED AND DEPENDS UP ON THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WITH DRIP) IV) AVERAGE FARM GATE PRICE WOULD BE AROUND/NUL-3-6) V) YIELD/ACRE - 200 X 70 14 000 VI) GROSS INCOME/ACRE-14 000 X 3 = 42 000 VII) INCOME FROM 26 ACRES 42000X26=1092000/- EVEN THE YIELD/NUTS WERE VARIED DEPEND UPON THE AGE/MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS AND MARKET EXISTED. SD/- U. NAGARAJA HORTICULTURE OFFICER NAKKAPALLI MANDAL 7.1 THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT TAHSILDAR HAS CERT IFIED THE INCOME I.E. PROBABLE INCOME AT RS.10 92 000/- BY FULLY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE CERTIFICATE OF HORTICULTURE OFFICER. THE TAHSILDAR HAS TAKEN ENOUGH CARE TO MENTION THAT HE IS ISSUING THE CERTIFICATE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER. ON A CAREFUL R EADING OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER WE NOTICE THAT HE HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY FIELD VISIT TO THE COCONUT FARMS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT HAS ONLY STATED THE PROBABLE YIELD OF A COCONUT TREE IN AN I DEAL CONDITION I.E. IF ALL THE SEASONAL CONDITIONS AND GOOD MANAGEMENT PRACTIC ES WERE ADOPTED HE MIGHT HAVE GOT YIELD AND INCOME AS DETA ILED BELOW. W HILE WORKING OUT THE INCOME THE HORTICULTURE OFFIC ER HAS AGAIN QUALIFIED THE YIELD/PALM/ACRE AT 200-250 WITH THE WORDINGS IF WELL GROWNED AND DEPENDS UPON THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WITH DRI P. AT THE END OF THE CERTIFICATE ALSO THE HORTICULTURE OFFIC ER HAS AGAIN REITERATED HIS QUALIFICATION STATE ABOVE. THUS THE CERTIFICATE ISS UED BY THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER IN OUR OPINION CAN ONLY BE INTERPRETED AS A PROJECTION REPORT OF YIELD ITA NOS.551 TO 555 OF 2008 UV RAMANA MURTHY RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 8 OF 10 THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE ON A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION IF BEST SEASONABLE CONDITIONS AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WITH DRIP IRRIGATION ARE AVAILABLE. THUS AS POINTED OUT BY LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE THE SAID REPORT CANNOT BE SAID TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL YIELD/ INCOME REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE IN OUR VIEW THE SAID REPORT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON SINCE IT IS NOT BASED ON THE ACTUAL YIELD. FOR THE SAME REA SON IT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS AN EXPERTS VALUATION ALSO AND ACCORDINGLY THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARE NOT APPLICABL E TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE CAN NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT BOTH THE TA HSILDAR AND THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER HAVE ISSUED THEIR RESPECTIVE CER TIFICATES ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER. SINCE T HE REPORT OF THE HORTICULTURE OFFICER HAS BEEN HELD TO BE NOT RELIABLE THE CERTI FICATES ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR AND THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CANNOT BE TAKEN AS RELIABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT HE HAS REALIZED THE AGRI CULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT DECLARED BY HIM. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AS SESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES ANY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF SALE BILLS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ETC. IN THIS KIND OF SITUATION TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OTHER OPTION TO ESTIMATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. BUT AS POINTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY BASIS FOR THE ESTIMATION MADE BY HIM. WE HAVE ALREADY STATED TH AT THE CERTIFICATES GIVEN BY THE TAHSILDAR AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFIC ER CANNOT BE TAKEN AS RELIABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. SINCE THE LEARNED CIT( A) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THOSE CERTIFICATES WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH HIS DECISION ALSO. HENCE WE ARE ALSO CONSTRAINED TO MAKE AN ESTIMATE ON THE BAS IS OF MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ACCORDINGLY WE PROCEED TO MAKE AN ESTIM ATE THE PROBABLE INCOME FOR ONE YEAR. WE HAVE TABULATED BELOW THE D ATA FURNISHED BY VARIOUS PERSONS: ITA NOS.551 TO 555 OF 2008 UV RAMANA MURTHY RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 9 OF 10 NAME OF PERSON NO. OF TREES PER ACRE YIELD PER TREE AVERAGE RATE PER PIECE EXPENSES PER TREE PER YEAR HORTICULTURE OFFICER 70 200 RS.3/- NO ESTIMATE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER 55 100-120 RS.2/- NO ESTIMATE INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX 56 80-90 RS.2/- RS.100/- ACCORDING TO THE PAMPHLET ISSUED BY THE COCONUT DEV ELOPMENT BOARD MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AN AVE RAGE YIELD OF 80 TO 100 NUTS OR MORE CAN BE EXPECTED WHEN IRRIGATION FACILI TIES ARE ALSO PROVIDED. BASED ON THE ABOVE DATA WE HAVE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO COMPUTE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME PER ACRE OF COCONUT FARM. (A) NO. OF TREES PER ACRE - 70 (AS ADOPTE D BY HORTI. OFFICER) (B) YIELD PER TREE - 100 (AS GIV EN IN THE PAMPHLET OF COCONUT DEVELOP. BOARD GOI) (C) AVERAGE FARM GATE PRICE - RS.3/- (AS ADOPTED BY H ORTI. OFFICER) (D) GROSS INCOME FOR ONE ACRE= 70 X 100 X RS.3/- - RS.21 000/- (E) EXPENSES PER TREE PER YEAR - RS.10 0/- - RS. 7 000/- (F) NET INCOME FOR ONE ACRE/YEAR = RS.14 000/- IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS WORKED OUT THE AVERAGE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR AVG. INCO ME/ACRE 2002-03 15 000 2003-04 16 000 2004-05 18 000 2005-06 19 000 2006-07 20 000 WHEN COMPARED WITH THE CALCULATION MADE BY US WE F IND THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE REASONABLE. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO GIVEN GRADUAL INCREASE IN THE INCOME IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF INFLATION. ITA NOS.551 TO 555 OF 2008 UV RAMANA MURTHY RAJU VISAKHAPATNAM PAGE 10 OF 10 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS WE DO NOT FIND ASSESSMENT YEAR JUSTIFICATION IN INTERFERING WITH THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT( A) AND CONFIRM THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6-9-2010. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE: 6 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 COPY TO 1 THE ITO WARD - 3(2) VISAKHAPATNAM 2 SHRI U.V. RAMANA MURTHY RAJU 50-25-1/1 TPT COLO NY SEETHAMMADHARA VISAKHAPATNAM 3 4. THE CIT 1 VISAKHAPATNAM THE CIT(A)-I VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM