Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
A.G. Bioteck Laboratories (India) ... vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad on 13 July, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES "A", HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. Nos. 1055 & 1134/HYD/2016
Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13
M/s. A.G. Bioteck Laboratories The Income Tax Officer,
(India) Ltd., Vs Ward-1(1),
Qutbullapur, HYDERABAD
Ranga Reddy Dist.,
[PAN: AABCA7336D]
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : Shri G.V.V.S. Murty, AR
For Revenue : Smt. Anjala Sahu, DR
Date of Hearing : 03-07-2017
Date of Pronouncement : 13-07-2017
ORDER
PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. :
These two appeals preferred by assessee are directed against the order(s) of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad, for the AYs. 2011-12 & 2012-13. The issue involved in both the appeals are common. For the sake of convenience, both the appeals are heard together and deposed of by passing the common order.
I.T.A. Nos. 1055 & 1134/Hyd/2016 :- 2 -:
2. The only issue involved in these appeals are whether the income derived by assessee by carrying on tissue culture operations is an agricultural income or business income. Ld. DR has submitted that the issue involved in these appeals is covered against the assessee in assessee's own case for the AYs. 2002-03 & 2003-04 in ITA Nos. 1172 & 1173/Hyd/2006 by the order dt. 28-
09-2007 and submitted that the same may be followed and the appeals filed by the assessee may be dismissed.
3. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the issue involved in these appeals though against the assessee in assessee's own case, however, it is covered by the decision of the Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of K.F. Bioplants Private Limited Vs. ITO in ITA No. 146/PN/2008 by order dt. 26- 03-2009.
4. We have heard both the sides, perused the records and gone to the orders of the authorities below. The assessee is engaged in the business of tissue culture operations and claimed before the AO that the income received by assessee from carrying tissue culture operations is income from agriculture. AO treated the income earned by assessee as income from business. On appeal, CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO by following assessee's own case for the AYs. 2002-03 & 2003-04 in ITA Nos.1172 & 1173/Hyd/2006 by the order dt. 28-09-2007, we find that whether the income received by assessee carrying the tissue culture is agricultural income or as already considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case and held that it is a business income. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under:
I.T.A. Nos. 1055 & 1134/Hyd/2016 :- 3 -:
"17. We have considered rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the income generated out of tissue culture or micro propagation is agriculture income or not. 'Agricultural income' has been defined in the Income-tax Act. Sec. 2(1A) reads as follows:
"2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (1) "advance tax" means the advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-C;
[(1A)] "agricultural income" means-
(a) any rent or revenue derived from land which is situated in India and is used for agricultural purposes;
(b) any income derived from such land by-
(i) agriculture; or
(ii) the performance by a cultivator or receiver of rent-in-kind of any process ordinarily employed by a cultivator or receiver of rent-in-kind to render the produce raised or received by him fit to be taken to market; or
(iii) the sale by a cultivator or receiver of rent-in-kind of the produce raised or received by him, in respect of which no process has been performed other than a process of the nature described in paragraph (ii) of this sub-clause ;
(c) any income derived from any building owned and occupied by the receiver of the rent or revenue of any such land, or occupied by the cultivator or the receiver of rent-in-kind, of any land with respect to which, or the produce of which, any process mentioned in paragraphs
(ii) and (iii) of sub-clause (b) is carried on :
Provided that-
(i) the building is on or in the immediate vicinity of the land, and is a building which the receiver of the rent or revenue or the cultivator, or the receiver of rent-in-kind, by reason of his connection with the land, requires as a dwelling house, or as a store-house, or other out-building, and
(ii) the land is either assessed to land revenue in India or is subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Government as such or where the land is not so assessed to land revenue or subject to a local rate, it is not situated-
(A) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, I.T.A. Nos. 1055 & 1134/Hyd/2016 :- 4 -:
notified area committee, town area committee, town committee or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population of not less than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year; or [(B) in any area within such distance, nor being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (A), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanization of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette.
1 Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that revenue derived from land shall not include and shall be deemed never to have included any income arising from the transfer of any land referred to in item (a) or item
(b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of this section.
Explanation 2 - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that income derived from any building or land referred to in sub-clause (c) arising from the use of such building or land for any purpose (including letting for residential purpose or for the purpose of any business or profession) other than agriculture falling under sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) shall not be agricultural income;"
5. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has already considered all the arguments raised by assessee and passed a detailed order. We find that the CIT(A) by following the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) and therefore, these two appeals of assessee are dismissed.
I.T.A. Nos. 1055 & 1134/Hyd/2016 :- 5 -:
6. So far as the case law relied on by the Ld. Counsel for assessee in the case of the K.F. Bioplants Private Limited Vs. ITO (supra), no application to the facts of the case in hand.
7. In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th July, 2017 Sd/- Sd/-
(S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 13th July, 2017 TNMM Copy to :
1. M/s. A.G. Bioteck Laboratories (India) Ltd., Sy.No. 226/A, Bachupally, Qutbullapur, Ranga Reddy District.
2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad.
3. CIT (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad.
4. Pr.CIT-1, Hyderabad.
5. D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.
6. Guard File.