DCIT, Bangalore v. Shri A. Narayanaswamy, Tumkur

ITSSA 37/BANG/2008 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 3721116 RSA 2008
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITSSA 37/BANG/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Bangalore
Respondent Shri A. Narayanaswamy, Tumkur
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 18-10-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 04-01-2016
Next Hearing Date 04-01-2016
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 08-05-2008
Judgment Text
IT(SS)A 37 & 38/BANG/2008 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'A' BANGALORE BEFORE DR. O. K. NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI. P. MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T(SS).A NO.37/BANG/2008 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1996-97 TO 2002-03) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3) BANGALORE .. APPELLANT V. SHRI. A. NARAYANASWAMY PROP : GURUKRUPA ENTERPRISES BALAJINAGAR SIRA TUMKUR DISTRICT .. RESPONDENT I.T(SS).A NO.38/BANG/2008 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1996-97 TO 2002-03) (BY THE ASSESSEE) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI. G. V. GOPALA RAO COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I O R D E R PER DR. O. K. NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT : THESE ARE TWO BLOCK ASSESSMENT APPEALS FILED BY TH E REVENUE AND BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A)-VI AT BANGALOR E DATED.08.01.2008 AND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT CO MPLETED U/S.143(3) R.W.S.158BC OF THE IT ACT 1961. IT(SS)A 37 & 38/BANG/2008 PAGE - 2 2. NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD BUT THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE. LAST TIME ALSO NOBODY APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE BUT IN THE LIGHT OF A PETITION THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THESE APPEALS ARE HEARD EX-PARTE FOR THE ASSESSEE. SHRI. G. V. GOPALA RAO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX-I APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE AND ARGUED THE CASE AT LEN GTH. 3. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE THE MOST AGI TATED GROUND IS RELATING TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME S TATED TO BE EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED IN ITS BLOCK RETURN AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 15 00 655/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT WHICH STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME BETWEEN ` 25 TO 30 LAKHS AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME STATED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS QUITE REASONABLE. THIS CLAIM WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FIRST APPEAL THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(A) ALLOWED 50% AND DISALLOWED THE BALANCE 50%. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) H AS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO DOUBT REG ARDING THE POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CULTIVATION THEREO N AND POSSIBILITY OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REV ENUE THAT THE IT(SS)A 37 & 38/BANG/2008 PAGE - 3 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY SUCH FINDING TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT ENJOYED AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND INCOME THEREFROM. 4. WE CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAD PROD UCED AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME CERTIFICATE BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO WHICH ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S.131 TO TH E TAHSILDAR TO VERIFY ITS BONAFIDES. THE TAHSILDAR REPLIED TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT NO SUCH CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY HIM AND THE CERTIFIC ATE WAS NOT A VALID CERTIFICATE. IT IS MAINLY ON THIS PREMISES THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS HANDS. AT THIS POINT OF TIME WE HAVE TO SEE THAT THE TAHSILDAR HAS AGITATED TO THE CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER HE HAS NOT STATED ANYTHING THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE EXTENSIVE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN HIS POSSES SION. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS HOLDING 102 ACRES OF LA ND. IT WAS THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DOORDARSHAN HAD R ECORDED THE FARMING ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN HI S LAND AND PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN BY THE SEARCH PARTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT AND ALL THOSE GO TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE GONE WRONG IN REJECTING COMPLETELY THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL LA NDS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. TO THAT EXTENT INTERFERENCE MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF IT(SS)A 37 & 38/BANG/2008 PAGE - 4 INCOME-TAX(A) COULD BE JUSTIFIED. BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED TH IS ISSUE IN A DETAILED MANNER. HE HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE ON G ENERAL OBSERVATIONS WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE ACTUAL EXTENT OF THE LAND T HE NATURE OF THE CROP DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD RESULTS OF INSPECTIO N IF ANY ETC. ON ONE SIDE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN AN EXTREM E VIEW OF CONDEMNING ALL THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESS EE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) HAS TAKEN ANOTHER EXT REME VIEW IN DEALING WITH THE ISSUE. 5. ON GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS WE FIND THAT THE Q UESTION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME NEEDS A RECONSIDERATION AT THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). THE DECISIONS OF BO TH THE AUTHORITIES WHO DEALT WITH THE MATTER SEEMS TO BE L ITTLE HASTE AND PREMATURE. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH OTHER GROUNDS ALSO RAISED B OTH BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME- TAX(A) HAS TAKEN A GENERAL APPROACH IN DECIDING ALL THE ISSUES AGITATED BEFORE HIM WHICH MAY CAUSE PREJUDICE EITHER TO THE ASSESSEE OR TO THE REVENUE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THE ISSUES NE ED A RECONSIDERATION AS IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT(SS)A 37 & 38/BANG/2008 PAGE - 5 7. THEREFORE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) IS SET ASIDE A ND THE FILE IS REMITTED BACK TO HIM FOR READJUDICATING THE FIRST A PPEAL AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE. 8. IN RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL A S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) (DR. O. K. NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT