Smt Vakkapatla Indira., Visakhapatnam v. The ITO, Ward-2., Machilipatnam

ITA 640/VIZ/2008 | 1988-1989
Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 64025314 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN ADXPV0312L
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 640/VIZ/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Smt Vakkapatla Indira., Visakhapatnam
Respondent The ITO, Ward-2., Machilipatnam
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 03-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 03-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 28-12-2010
Assessment Year 1988-1989
Appeal Filed On 22-10-2009
Judgment Text
ITA NOS 639 TO 642 OF 08VAKKAPATLA INDIRA VAKKAPATLAVA RIPALEM PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 639 TO 642/VIZAG/2008 ASSESSMENT YEARS:1987-88 TO 1990-91 VAKKAPATLA INDIRA L/R OF LATE V. SRI RAM PRASAD VAKKAPATLAVARIPALAM VS. ITO WARD-2 MACHILIPATNAM (APPELLANT) PAN NO: ADXPV 0312 L (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI C.V.S. MURTHY CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.K. SINGH DR ORDER PER SHRI B. R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT (A) VIJAYAWADA AND THEY RELATE TO THE A SSESSMENT YEARS 1987- 88 TO 1990-91. SINCE THE ISSUES URGED IN THESE APP EALS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISP OSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS IN THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL. HOWEVER DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE RESTRICTED HIS ARGUMENTS IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING ISSUES ONLY. A) THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 WAS ISSUED ONLY TO ONE OF THE LEGAL HEIRS I.E. V. INDIRA INSTEAD OF ISSUING NOTIC E ON ALL LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. B) ESTIMATION OF INCOME DERIVED FROM PRAWN CULTURE DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY THE OTHER GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS 639 TO 642 OF 08VAKKAPATLA INDIRA VAKKAPATLAVA RIPALEM PAGE 2 OF 9 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASES ARE STATED IN BR IEF. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE 2 ND ROUND. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE CRUX OF THE MATTER UNDER DISPUTE IT IS NECESSARY TO BRIEFLY DE VOLVE UPON THE FACTS WHICH LED TO THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE FIRST ROUND. THE ASSESSEE HEREIN SHRI V. SRIRA M PRASAD PASSED AWAY ON 5.10.1991. SUBSEQUENT TO HIS DEATH THE DEPARTMENT CARRIED OUT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT ON 13-8-1992 IN THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI V. BABU RAO FATHER OF THE ASSESS EE HEREIN. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DEPOSITIONS WERE TAKEN FROM SHRI V. BABU RAO FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO FROM SMT. V. INDIRA WIFE OF T HE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT TAKEN FROM SHRI V.BABURAO T HE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS STATED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE H EREIN WAS HAVING ABOUT 70 ACRES OF PRAWN TANKS IN SANGAMESWARAM OF NAGAYA LANKA MANDAL AND WAS DOING PRAWN FARMING FROM THE YEAR 1988 BY CONVE RTING THE LAND WHICH WERE PURCHASED. IT WAS ALSO STATED BY SHRI V. BABU RAO THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT INCOME DERIVED FROM THE PRAWN TANKS. HOW EVER IN THE FINAL STATEMENT HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE E ARNED ABOUT RS.2.50 LAKHS FOR EACH FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 1987-88 AND 1988 -89. HE ALSO STATED THAT SOME OF THE LANDS WERE SOLD AWAY IN THE YEAR 1990. IN THE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.9 OF PRELIMINARY STATEMENT HE STATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN HAD DEVELOPED PRAWN TANKS IN 45 ACRES IN PEDDAPALEM VILLAGE IN NAGAYA LANKA MANDAL IN 1990. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD TAKEN 8 ACRES OF LEASED LAND FOR PRAWN TANKS AT A LEASE REN T OF RS.2000/- PER ACRE PER YEAR. THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. V. INDIRA ALSO A DMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT PRAWN FARMING BUSINESS IN THE YEARS 1986-88 OVER ABOVE 70 ACRES OF PRAWN TANKS. BASED ON THESE STATEMENTS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2.50 LAK HS IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 1987-88 TO 1989-90. IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 IS CONCERNED THE DEPARTMENT SEIZED A DIARY WHICH REVEALED A RECEIPT OF RS.3 61 756/- ON SALE OF PRAWNS HARVESTE D IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 1991. SHRI BABU RAO FATHER OF THE ASSESSE E ADMITTED THAT THERE ITA NOS 639 TO 642 OF 08VAKKAPATLA INDIRA VAKKAPATLAVA RIPALEM PAGE 3 OF 9 WOULD BE A SIMILAR RECEIPT ON SALE OF FIRST CROP HA RVESTED BY HIS SON I MAY 1991 AND THE NET INCOME FROM BOTH THE CROPS WOULD B E AROUND RS.5.00 LAKHS WHICH HAS TO BE SHARED BY 4 MEMBERS OF FAMILY AS PER ACREAGE RATIO. ON THE SAME BASIS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 990-91 WAS ADOPTED AT RS.1 94 000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS MANNER THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 4 YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WER E FINALIZED ORIGINALLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY H ELD THAT THE PRAWN CULTURE INCOME IS TO BE COMPUTED ONLY IN RESPECT OF 20.31 A CRES I.E 12.31 ACRES OF LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND 8 ACRES OF LAND TAKE N ON LEASE. BY ADOPTING THE INCOME AT RS.3 500/- PER ACRE THE LEA RNED CIT(A) DETERMINED THE INCOME FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS AT RS.71 085/- PE R YEAR. THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE ITAT CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). THE SMC BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTERS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 20. SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT ADVERTED TO T HESE ASPECTS IN CORRECT PERSPECTIVE I DEEM IT FAIR AND REASONABLE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IS DIRECTED TO RECONSIDER TH E MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO OBSERVE THAT IT IS FOR THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED ON PRAWN CULTURE IN ACS.70.00 OF LA ND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1987-88 TO 1989-90. SIMILARLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE INCOME EARNED PER ACRE WAS ONLY RS.3 500/- AS A GAINST THE APPROXIMATE RS.10 000/- PER ACRE ACCEPTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992-93 AND 1993-94. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE CON TENDED AS UNDER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER: A. THERE WAS NO PRAWN CULTURE IN THIS AREA PRIOR T O 1990. IT WAS MY LATE HUSBAND THAT INITIATED THE PRAWN CULTUR E FIRST IN THIS AREA ON EXPERIMENTAL BASIS. AS IT WAS CULTIVAT ED ON EXPERIMENTAL BASIS HE MIGHT NOT HAVE EARNED PROFIT S ON THAT ACTIVITY. ITA NOS 639 TO 642 OF 08VAKKAPATLA INDIRA VAKKAPATLAVA RIPALEM PAGE 4 OF 9 B. THE LANDS USED FOR THE CULTURE WERE THE WASTE LA NDS AND HAD BEEN NEVER USED FOR CULTIVATION OF ANY VARIETY OF CROPS. THE LANDS MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN SUITED FOR THE PRAWN CULTURE. C. THE ABOVE TWO REASONS MIGHT HAVE BEEN CAUSES FOR DISPOSING OF THE LANDS AND GOING FOR ACQUIRING THE LANDS AT ANOTHER PLACE FOR THE PRAWN CULTURE WHICH WERE CONS IDERED IN THE STATUS OF TWO PARTNERSHIP FIRMS NAMELY M/S SREE RAM & COMPANY AND M/S SAIRAM & COMPANY. D. DURING THOSE YEARS MY HUSBAND HAD TAKEN SO MANY LOANS LEFT AND RIGHT WITHOUT KNOWING TO THE THIRD PERSON. THIS IS EVIDENT AS PER THE ANNEXURE TO THE SWORN IN STATEME NT ENCLOSED HEREWITH. E. THE LOANS BORROWED BY MY LATE HUSBAND HAD BEEN CLEARED OFF BY MY FATHER-IN-LAW TO THE TUNE OF RS.6 90 845/ -. A COPY OF THE STATEMENTS FILED TO YOUR DEPARTMENT IN CONNE CTION WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF HIS INCOME IN THE FORM OF CASH FL OW STATEMENT IS HEREWITH ENCLOSED. F. TO CLEAR OFF THE DEBTS AS STATED IN THE ABOVE PA RAGRAPH 6.13 ACRES OF MY FATHERS-IN-LAW AGRICULTURAL LAND OF NATIVE VILLAGE HAD BEEN SOLD OFF. THIS CAN BE SEEN FROM TH E ENCLOSURES TO THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT REFERRED TO A BOVE. BASED ON THE ABOVE REASONS I SUBMIT FOR YOUR PERUS AL THAT I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO INCOME IN THOSE YEARS TO BRING TO THE INCOME TAX. FURTHER I AM OF THE VIEW THERE HAD BEEN INCOME WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE FO RM OF EITHER LIQUID ASSETS OR SOME OTHER FORM. NOTHING WA S FOUND DURING THE RAID WHICH SUPPORTS TO THE INCOME USED T O HAVE BEEN EARNED AND STATED BY MY FATHER-IN-LAW. WHEN RAID WAS CONDUCTED THE AGE OF MY FATHER-I-LAW WAS 72. THE TIME WHEN THE SWORN IN STATEMENT WAS RECORDED F OR THE SECOND TIME WAS 10.50PM ON THE DATE OF RAID. IT MAY BE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT HE MENTIONED THE FACT THAT WE HAD SEPARATED FROM HIM SINCE 1987 AND HE HAD NO KNOWLED GE OF MY FAMILY AFFAIRS TILL MY HUSBAND DIED IN THE YEAR 1991. THE ONLY THE ANGLE TO BE LOOKED INTO IS THE MATERIA L FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE. THE MATERI AL THAT WAS FOUND IS A LONG LIST OF PROMISSORY NOTES THAT H AD BEEN EXECUTED DURING HIS INITIAL PRAWN CULTURE PERIOD UN DER CONSIDERATION. ITA NOS 639 TO 642 OF 08VAKKAPATLA INDIRA VAKKAPATLAVA RIPALEM PAGE 5 OF 9 IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED PRACTICE THAT WHEREVER THERE IS A BENEFIT OF DOUBT IT SHOULD BE PASSED ON TO THE ASSESSEE. TH E BENEFITS OF DOUBT HERE ARE- I) NO RECORDS AT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE AVAILABLE AS TO THE EXTENT OF LAND POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE; II) WHETHER THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE THIRD PERSON WHO WAS SEPARATED FROM THE FAMILY LONG AGO COULD BE TAK EN AS EVIDENCE; III) NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE WHICH SUPPORTS TO THE INCOME STATED WAS FOUND IN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS THE ULTIMATE AND UTMOST TOOL OF ACQUIRING THE EVIDENCE; IV) AT THE TIME OF RAID THE AGE OF THE PERSON WHO HAD GIVEN STATEMENT AT NIGHT AT 10.50 AND CONTINUED TIL L EARLY IN THE NEXT DAY MORNING WAS 72; V) BECAUSE OF THE AGE OVER HIM HE COULD NOT FOLLOW UP THE CASE IN THE LATER STAGES PROPERLY; VI) THE ACTIVITY OF PRAWN CULTURE WAS CARRIED ON AS AN EXPERIMENTAL ONE; VII) THERE WAS NO PRAWN CULTURE PRIOR TO THE YEAR 1990. AS REGARDS TO THE AMOUNT OF INCOME FOR ACRE TO BE APPLIED IS WHETHER 3500 OR 10000 AS PER THE VERSION S BY THE PARTIES INVOLVED IT IS WORTH IT TO LOOK AT THE CONSUMER INDEX THAT IS ANNOUNCED BY THE GOVERNMENT YEAR TO YEAR. IT IS AS IF TALKED OF PRESENT FORGETTI NG THE FACT THAT IT WAS 1987 TO 1990. IT WAS GREAT MATTER E VEN IF EARNED RS.3 500/- PER ACRE ON THE WASTE LANDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION S OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY OUT PRAWN CULTURE IN 70 ACRES OF LAND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE INCOME FROM PRAWN CULTURE FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 1987- 88 TO 1989-90 AT RS.2 50 000/- PER YEAR AND AT RS.1 94 000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 I.E AT THE SAME AMOUNTS TH AT WERE DETERMINED IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS. LEARNED CIT(A) ALS O CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED THE RECORD. IN THE FIRST ISSUE THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING THAT THE NO TICE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS NOT ISSUED TO ALL THE LEGAL HEIRS. HOWEVER IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDING TREATING THE ITA NOS 639 TO 642 OF 08VAKKAPATLA INDIRA VAKKAPATLAVA RIPALEM PAGE 6 OF 9 WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. V. INDIRA AS THE LEGAL R EPRESENTATIVE AND THE MATTER REACHED UP TO THE STAGE OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THEN AGAIN THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED IN HER NAME ONLY IN THE SECON D ROUND ALSO. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE THIS KIND O F OBJECTION AT ANY STAGE OF PROCEEDING NARRATED ABOVE. BESIDES THE ABOVE T HE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CANDIDLY ADMITTED THAT THE OTHER LEG AL HEIRS ARE ONLY MINORS WHOSE GUARDIAN ALSO IS SMT. V. INDIRA THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE PRESENT CONTENTION I. E. THE NOTICE OF REOPENING WAS NOT ISSUED ON ALL THE LEGAL HEIRS. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME ON PRAWN CULTURE WE NOTICE THAT THE SMC BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RECONSIDE R THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. AFTER SO DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THAT IT IS FOR THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSE SSEE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED ON PRAWN CULTURE IN ACS. 7 0.00 OF LAND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1987-88 TO 1989-90. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 ALSO IT IS FOR THE ASS ESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE INCOME EARNED PER ACRE WAS ONLY RS.3 500/- AS AGAI NST THE APPROXIMATE RS.10 000/- PER ACRE ACCEPTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1992-93 AND 1993- 94. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INFERRED T HAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY TO PROVE THE EXTENT OF LAND AND THE INCOME. WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT THE TRIBU NAL HAS ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW WHICH MEANS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT THE BASIS FOR ESTIMATION OF PRAWN CULTURE INCOME ON 70 ACRES OF LAND IS THE SWORN STATEMENTS OF THE FATHER AND THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER THE MAT TER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE ITA NOS 639 TO 642 OF 08VAKKAPATLA INDIRA VAKKAPATLAVA RIPALEM PAGE 7 OF 9 FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19-10-2006 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING TWO CERTIFICATES O BTAINED FROM THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. A) INCOME CERTIFICATE DATED 26.3.2007 WHERE IN IT WAS CERTIFIED THAT INCOME FROM 15.28 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT NANGAGAD DA VILLAGE OF NAGAYALANKA MANDAL WAS RS.10 000/- PER ACRE BY RASI SING PADDY AND BLACK GRAM DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1988 TO 1991. B) A CERTIFICATE DATED 04-12-2007 TO THE EFFECT TH AT THE PRAWN CULTURE IS BEING CULTIVATED IN THE NAGAYALANKA MANDAL SINCE 1992. ACCORDING TO LEARNED A.R THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE FACT WHICH IS NOT HUMANLY POSSIBLE AT THE PRESENT STAGE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HERE WAS NO PRAWN CULTURE PRIOR TO 1992 WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE NAGA YALANKA MANDAL. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R THAT NO CREDENCE COULD BE GIVEN ON THE SWORN STATEMENTS OF THE FATHER AND WIF E OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAID STATEMENTS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CORROBORAT IVE EVIDENCE. 8. HOWEVER WE MAY STATE THAT THE SMC BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT PRAWN CULTURE AND THE ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE ONLY TO DETERMINE THE EXTEN T OF LAND THAT WERE CULTIVATED DURING THE YEARS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 1987-88 AND 1989-90 AND ALSO TO DETERMINE THE INCOME FROM 20.31 ACRES OF LAND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91. HENCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISPUTE SHOULD BE CONFINED ONLY ON THESE TWO ISSUES. 9. WITH REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF LAND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CULTIVATED DURING THE YEARS 1987-88 TO 1989-90 THE LEGAL REPR ESENTATIVE COULD PRODUCE TWO DOCUMENTS CITED IN PARAGRAPH 7 (SUPRA) ACCORDING TO WHICH THERE WAS NO PRAWN CULTURE ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR S UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE LIMITS OF NAGAYALANKA MANDAL. THUS ACCORDING T O THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO PRAWN CULTURE ACTIVITY WHICH GOES AGAINST T HE AVERMENTS MADE IN ITA NOS 639 TO 642 OF 08VAKKAPATLA INDIRA VAKKAPATLAVA RIPALEM PAGE 8 OF 9 THE SWORN STATEMENTS. HOWEVER FOR THE REASONS STA TED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE IT HAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID CARRY O UT PRAWN CULTURE ACTIVITY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1987-88 TO 1989-90. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 THOUGH THE PRAWN CULTURE WAS ACCEPTED TO H AVE BEEN CARRIED ON 45.28 ACRES OF LAND THE SAID LAND BELONGED TO VARI OUS MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY AND ACCORDINGLY THE INCOME WAS ESTIMATED ONL Y IN RESPECT OF ABOUT 20 ACRES OF LAND PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE. IF WE APPLY THE SAME ANALOGY IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE ALLEGED 70 ACRES OF LAN D FULLY BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY OR TO VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS. WE ALS O NOTICE THAT THE PRAWN CULTURE INCOME PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 90-91 HAS BEEN ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN MATERIAL PERTAINI NG TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. THUS IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENC E EITHER WITH THE ASSESSEE OR WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE EX TENT OF LAND OR WITH REGARD TO THE INCOME GENERATED FROM PRAWN CULTURE. 10. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HA D DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MEANING THEREBY IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO FURNISH ANY EVIDE NCE IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BRING ON RECORD ANY OTH ER MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY HIM. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD BUT SIMPLY ADOPTED TH E INCOME THAT WAS DETERMINED FOR THE INSTANT YEARS IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDING. 11. THUS THE ONLY FACT WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED B Y BOTH THE PARTIES IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ABOUT 20 ACRES OF LAND UNDE R HIS CONTROL DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. LEAVING ASIDE THIS THE RE IS NO MATERIAL EITHER WITH THE ASSESSEE OR WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THE EXTENT OF LAND OR THE QUANTUM OF INCOME THAT COULD HAVE BEEN GENER ATED FROM PRAWN CULTURE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE LEFT WITH N O OTHER OPTION BUT TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME FROM PRAWN CULTURE FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER ITA NOS 639 TO 642 OF 08VAKKAPATLA INDIRA VAKKAPATLAVA RIPALEM PAGE 9 OF 9 CONSIDERATION. ON A CONSPECTUS OF THE MATTER AND C ONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL ON THE RECORD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME F ROM PRAWN CULTURE MAY BE ESTIMATED AT RS.80 000/- FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 1987-88 TO 1990-91 AND IN OUR VIEW IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 12. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD MARCH 2011. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B R BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE: 03-03-2011 COPY TO 1 SMT VAKKAPATLA INDIRA L/R OF SHRI V.SRI RAM PRAS AD C/O P. SRINIVASA RAO ADVOCATE PLOT NO.103 DASPALLA LAYOUT VISAKHA PATNAM 2 THE ITO WARD-2 MACHILIPATNAM 3 4. THE CIT VIJAYAWADA THE CIT(A) VIJAYAWADA 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM