Smt. S.Geetha, CHENNAI v. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 844/CHNY/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 84421714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AEBPG0923M
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 844/CHNY/2010
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant Smt. S.Geetha, CHENNAI
Respondent ACIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 27-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 27-01-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 02-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER) ..... I.T.A. NOS. 838 839 840 841 842 843 & 844 / MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2000-01 TO 2006-07 SMT. S. GEETHA OLD NO.19 NEW NO.45 GERIAPPA ROAD T. NAGAR CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : AEBPG0923M (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I(2) CHENNAI - 600 034. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH S HE ASSAILS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE ASSESS MENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOU RCES BY THE A.O. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE THE CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED H ER APPEALS ONLY FOR A REASON THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND REGARDING T HE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND NO REGULAR BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED FOR THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS RELATING T O AGRICULTURAL OPERATION. I.T.A. NOS. 838 TO 844/MDS/10 2 2. ALL THESE APPEALS HAD BEEN FILED WITH DELAY OF 4 42 DAYS. THE REASON STATED FOR THE DELAY IS THAT THERE WAS A CHA NGE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND DIFFICULTY IN GETTING NO OBJECTI ON CERTIFICATE FROM EARLIER AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR NEW INCUMBENT TO TAKE CHARGE. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLEADED IGNORANCE OF LAW. WE FIN D THAT THERE WERE SIMILAR DELAYS IN FILING OF APPEALS IN THE CASE OF SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND SHRI S. SATHYANARAYANAN ASS ESSEES SON ALSO AND THE VERY SAME REASONS WERE CITED FOR CONDO NATION. THIS TRIBUNAL HAD CONDONED THE DELAY BASED ON SUCH REASO NS AND ADMITTED THE APPEALS AND DISPOSED THEM OF IN I.T.A. NOS. 378 TO 390/MDS/2010 DATED 19 TH MAY 2010. WE ARE IN FULL CONCURRENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD AND WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT THE REASONS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE REASONABLE. DELAY IS THEREFORE CONDONED AND APPEALS ADMITTED. 3. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT THERE WAS SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ ON 21.09.2 005. PURSUANT TO THIS PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECT ION 147(1) OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASS ESSEE AS INCOME I.T.A. NOS. 838 TO 844/MDS/10 3 FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. ASSESSEE IT SEEMS COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LIKE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ACT UAL AREA CULTIVATED AND EVIDENCES FOR PURCHASE OF SEEDS FERTILIZERS P ESTICIDES AND EVIDENCE FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO HIS SA TISFACTION. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS REGARDING THE NA TURE OF CROPS AND LAND AREAS CULTIVATED NO DOCUMENTS WERE FORTHCOMIN G AS EVIDENCE FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE. 4. IN HER APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT GIVEN TO ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING CHITTA AND ADANGAL OF AGRICULTURAL LAND O WNED BY HER. AS PER THE ASSESSEE SHE HAD RETURNED AGRICULTURAL INC OME FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE LAND AT DHANDUMEDU VILLAGE. ASS ESSEE ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT HER SON SHRI S. SATHYANARAYANAN HAD MENTIONED IN A SWORN STATEMENT THAT THE FAMILY MEMBERS OWNED ABOUT 30 TO 40 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEY WERE ADMITTING SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THEIR RE SPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A CERTIFICATE FR OM VAO IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. WHILE ACCEPTING THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS SHE CLAIMED RETURNED INCOME SHOWN WAS REASONABLE. I.T.A. NOS. 838 TO 844/MDS/10 4 5. LD. CIT(APPEALS) AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PR OVE THE RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ACCORDING TO HIM ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ WAS LOOKING AFTER THE LAND OWNED BY ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE A SSESSMENTS DONE ON SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ WHEREIN ALSO AGRICULTURAL IN COME WAS CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES FOR THE VERY SAME YEARS IN ASSESSMENTS DONE PURSUANT TO SEARCH LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE SAID SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ THE ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM UN DISCLOSED SOURCES WAS UPHELD BY HIM. THUS RELYING ON HIS OW N ORDERS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ I N ITA NOS. 325 TO 331/07-08 HE UPHELD THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND. 6. WHEN THE MATTER CAME BEFORE US LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES H USBAND SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ AS WELL AS HER SON SHRI S. SATHYANARAYAN AN WHEREIN AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN WERE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE HAD COME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNA L IN I.T.A. NOS. 378 TO 390/MDS/2010. FILING A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 19 TH MAY 2010 LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT IN I.T.A. NOS. 838 TO 844/MDS/10 5 THE ASSESSEES CASE ALSO THE MATTER HAD TO BE REMIT TED BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO DECISION IN LINE WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN OTHER CASES. ACCORDING TO HIM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED RETURN ED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 80% OF THE RETURNED AMOUNT AND ONLY 20% WAS CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND ASSESSEES SON HAD TAKEN NOT E OF THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REGULAR ASSESSMENTS DON E FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHEREIN THE A.O. HAD ACCEPTED 80% OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHILE REMITTING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECISION AFRESH. 7. PER CONTRA THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS. ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WERE INITIATED PURSUANT TO SEARCH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAN D SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ. ALL THE ASSESSEES CONCERNED INCLUDING SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ AS WELL AS ASSESSEES SON SHRI S. SATHYA NARAYANAN HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETUR NS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS AND SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS N OT ACCEPTED BY I.T.A. NOS. 838 TO 844/MDS/10 6 THE A.O. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. AS POINTED BY THE LEARNED A.R . SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ AS WELL AS SHRI S. SATHYANARAYANAN HAD C ARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES ARISING IN THOSE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES ARISING HERE ALSO. IN PARAGRAPHS 6 TO 14 OF THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 19 TH MAY 2010 IN I.T.A. NOS. 378 TO 390/MDS/2010 IN TH E CASE OF SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ AND SHRI S. SATHYANARAYANAN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 6. HAVING ADMITTED THESE APPEALS LET US FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEALS OF THE FATHER SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ IN I.T.A. NOS. 384 TO 390/MDS/2010. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY PASSING A COMMON ORDER SINCE THERE WERE COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM IN ALL THE SE APPEALS. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THESE APPEALS ARE THAT DURING AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH DETA ILS REGARDING EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND LAND ACTUALLY CULTIVAT ED AND DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE OF SEEDS FERTILIZ ERS PESTICIDES AND ALSO PROOF FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS REGARDING LAND AND NATURE OF CROPS PRODUCED BUT HE FAILED TO PRODUCE A NY DOCUMENTS/ EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE OF SEEDS FERTILIZERS AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. HOLDING THAT IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE INCOME WAS DERIVED FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED NO DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURA L INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON (WHO IS THE AS SESSEE IN THE SECOND SET OF APPEALS) FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-0 1 TO 2006- 07 [(EXTRACTED FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)] ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I.T.A. NOS. 838 TO 844/MDS/10 7 ASST. YEAR K. SUNDARARAJ S. GEETHA W/O THE ASSESSEE S. SATHYANARAYANAN S/O THE ASSESSEE TOTAL 2000-01 184550 172550 177250 534350 2001-02 194600 197260 190650 582510 2002-03 260420 240300 240620 741340 2003-04 411350 431550 570170 1413070 2004-05 445350 473150 625170 1543670 2005-06 445350 495180 648950 1589480 2006-07 534420 165065 778740 1478225 THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE COLUMNS AGAINST BOTH THE AS SESSEES WERE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS THE A SSESSEE MOVED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IT WAS ARGUED AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED DETAILS OF LAND AND EXPENSES INCURRED ON VARIOUS HEADS LIKE COST OF SEE DS FERTILIZERS LABOUR COST ETC; THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ONLY ASKED FOR DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED AND HAS NOT GIVEN TIME TO PRODUCE THE CHITTA AND ADANGAL OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE; THE ASSES SEE HAS BEEN SHOWING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE SINCE THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF LANDS AT DHANDUMEDU VILLAGE; TH E OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN CASH AND THE SURPLUS INCOME WAS INVESTED IN THE ACQUISITION OF ASSETS BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL FILED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE VAO IN SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI S. SATHYANARAYANA N HAS DISCLOSED IN THE SWORN STATEMENT DATED 21.9.200 5 AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THAT THE FAMILY MEMBERS OWNED ABOUT 30 TO 40 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM WHIC H EACH MEMBER HAS BEEN ADMITTING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED EACH YEA R. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NOT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. I.T.A. NOS. 838 TO 844/MDS/10 8 7. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE COULD SEE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS THE QUANTUM OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME (AS SEEN FRO M THE CHART EXTRACTED ELSEWHERE ABOVE) SHOWN HAS CONTINUOUSLY I NCREASED FROM A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF RS.5 34 350/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 TO A VERY SUBSTANTIAL SUM OF RS.14 78 225/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE REAL LEVEL OF THESE O PERATIONS WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE IF WE CONSIDER THE GROS S RECEIPTS. FURTHER THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED WAS ON THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS STATION ED AT CHENNAI AND IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN REAL ESTATE BUSI NESS AND THEREFORE HE CANNOT CLAIM IGNORANCE WITH REFERENCE TO MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR TR ANSACTIONS OF THIS MAGNITUDE. FURTHER HE WAS OF THE VIEW THA T THE RECORDS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WOULD BE NEEDED BY A PERSON F OR HIS OWN SAKE OF CONTROLLING MONITORING AND SUPERVISION OF THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IT WAS ALL T HE MORE SO BECAUSE HE ALSO CLAIMS TO BE MANAGING THE AGRICULTU RAL OPERATIONS ON LANDS OWNED BY HIS WIFE AND SON WHO ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME- TAX. THEREFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT LACK OF EVIDENCE ITSELF BECOMES A CLEAR EVIDENCE AGAINST TH E CLAIM OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT MERE OWNERSHIP OF LAND CANNOT BE AN E VIDENCE FOR THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE; CERT IFICATE OF VAO CANNOT ADD MUCH AS VAO IS NOT AN AUTHORITY TO C ERTIFY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOMES EARNED; THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT P RODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS OF SUCH SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL MAGNITUDE AND NO EVIDENCE FOR THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH; THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL SUPPORT CANVASSED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL REGARDING THE PRE-OCCUPATION OF THE ASSESSE E WITH HIS OTHER ACTIVITIES NON-MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS SINCE HE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT NO BOOKS WERE NEEDED TO BE MAINTAINED SINCE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS EXEMPT CANNOT STAND A CLOSER SCRUTINY AS BROUGHT OUT ABOVE. THUS THE CI T(APPEALS) AGREED WITH THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE IS STILL AGGRIEVED AND IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A. NOS. 838 TO 844/MDS/10 9 8. THE COMMON GROUNDS OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E READ AS UNDER:- (1) THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-U CHENNAI IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. (2) COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL BY A SINGLE ORDER WITHOUT DULY CONSIDERING MERITS FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND FOR EACH OF THE APPELLANT SEPARATELY. (3) COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES MERELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AT THE TIME SEARCH FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME. (4) COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT NO REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED FOR RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THESE APPEALS MAY BE SENT BAC K TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO DECISION FOR THE REASON THAT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR NAMELY ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) HAS ACCEPTED SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE A SSESSEE AFTER DISALLOWING ONLY 20% OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE PLEADED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WERE ALSO SAME. IN A N UTSHELL ACCORDING TO HIM IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THESE MATTERS ARE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR C ONSIDERATION AGAIN AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SUBSEQUENT ASSE SSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. HE ALSO FILED A C OPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 10. PER CONTRA THE LEARNED D.R. VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO SETTING ASIDE THESE ASSESSMENTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R DE NOVO DECISION. HE PLEADED THAT EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE UNIT I.T.A. NOS. 838 TO 844/MDS/10 10 UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT HAVE ANY RELEVANCE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMEN T ORDERS. HE REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITYS ORDER AS HIS SUBMISSIONS. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDE RED THE FACTS AND MATERIALS ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 4 65 536/- AFTER DISALLOWING 20% (TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES) FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED AT RS.5 81 92 0/-. ALSO WE FIND THAT THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SE CTION 143(3) WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED VARIOUS DETAILS AND EVIDENCES IN SUPP ORT OF EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HOWEVER ACCORDING TO HIM AS THIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED HE DI SALLOWED 20% OF THE SAME AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES. 12. IN A NUTSHELL IT IS NOT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AT ALL PRODUCED ANY VOUCHERS ETC. AND IT WAS ONLY THAT TH E AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED AND HENCE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 20%. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AGRI CULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS ASSESSMENT YE AR IS RS.5 81 920/- AS AGAINST RS.5 34 420/- OFFERED IN T HE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN SUCH FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RESTORE THESE APPEALS BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER W ITH THE DIRECTION TO RE-DETERMINE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME F OR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS OF COURSE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AL SO. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVID ENCES AND DETAILS AS WERE PRODUCED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07-08 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS TO GIVE ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO TH E ASSESSEE. THUS THESE 7 APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSE ONLY. 13. LET US TURN TO THE APPEALS IN I.T.A. NOS. 378 379 380 381 382 AND 383/MDS/2010 IN THE CASE OF SHRI S. SATHYANARAYANAN. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE I DENTICAL AS APPEARING IN THE CASE OF THE FATHER -ASSESSEE SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ EXCEPT THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED. HENCE WE I.T.A. NOS. 838 TO 844/MDS/10 11 DEEM IT FIT NOT TO BURDEN THIS ORDER WITH NUMBER OF PAGES AND HENCE WE ARE NOT REPEATING THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER IN THE CAS E OF SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ HAS UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THIS CASE FOR THE SAME REASONS RECORDED IN HIS ORDER IN THE CASE OF S HRI K. SUNDARARAJ. 14. SIMILAR ARGUMENTS WERE MADE FROM BOTH THE SIDES IN THESE APPEALS AS MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE-FATHER. WE HAVE ALREADY NARRATED ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AN D ARGUMENTS MADE IN THE CASE OF THE FATHER-ASSESSEE SHRI K. SUN DARARAJ AND RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES ARE SAME WE ARE RESTORING THESE APPEALS ALSO TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS AS MADE IN PARA NO. 12 ABOVE. 9. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT AT PARA 6 OF THE AB OVE MENTIONED ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL THE TABLE GIVEN BY THE TRIB UNAL CLEARLY MENTIONS THE AMOUNTS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO AS AGRICU LTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE L OWER AUTHORITIES. NOTHING WAS PRODUCED BY THE LEARNED D .R. TO WARRANT A DIFFERENT VIEW IN ASSESSEES CASE HERE. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AS SESSEES HUSBAND SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ AND ASSESSEES SON SHRI S. SATHY ANARAYANAN WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-DETERMINE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS TO AS SESSING OFFICER WHO I.T.A. NOS. 838 TO 844/MDS/10 12 WILL GIVE ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING TO THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31.01.2011 . SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. G EORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER CHENNAI DATED THE 31 ST JANUARY 2011. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-I CHENNAI (4) CIT CENTRAL-I CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE