Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M R Jayaram (Huf) on 16 December, 2009
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Aravind Kumar
IN THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA.
DATED THIS THE 16'"? DAY OF DECEM*§{ERV;ev.2G§)9'5"_' %
PRESENT"
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE
AND
THE HONBLE MR. wsnce ARAVINE) 1'-:Jj:;M.A.R
I.T.A NO: 1ie3:&:?8/2.QVo6 '-
B BEN V . 2
1. The C()E1"J:T1iSSiQr1€l"' _ .
Income-'1"ap§',* C.R.Bu-ieiwidng,' V.
Queens ~ __
Ban;ga1Qi"'e 4 5601.'
of Incomeetax, 'Cer»1tra} "Ci__fc]e~2(2).
C.R.BuiEding. Qneens R9361'
Bangaloreg % . " V.
2. The D:épuTi:.y' "£3"
, A * " Appellants:
aehaia ...__.Adv.)
AND; "
M.R.Jayar:{m (Hf
"'Goku1 H0---1,; se *Gok'1:l
" eMathVikkere,.. "
' " "Bai1ga1pre.
flu ' V '~ ._' SriA._A';Snankar. Adv .)
Respondent:
('I/% {O This Appeal is flied Under Section 260A of Tax Act, 1961 praying to allow the appeal ar3~é.set.__"aside the order passed by the ITA'§Ef* in I"'i'°A';' No.2351/Bang/2004 dated 02--G6-2006..C,Qi'i~fi1'fiT1:iI]g' th'e_ order of Appellate Commissione--r"'a;n,d C--'_()I1fi4I'f1'...'4thE».Q1'd'€1" ' passed by the By, C0mmnr..f_of:I.ne}:>fi1e'TaX;=.Ceent1fal Circlew2[2) Bangalore. ' ' " * "
This a.ppeal coming~..,.e:or2y for" day,"
MANJUNATH J, delivered thefoilowing _ The present appealiiisv challenging the order. / passed by the Thexlappeal was admitted on following suVbsta'n:tial"q_i§'estioi"1s of law:
1. l-/l.t.)"' amount of RS220 lakhs declared -------- the assessee has its income
--vd4eri'>veACi from agriculture should be accepted « not producing any e'Vide7nce t.o Show the actual expenditure " .iVn'eurred for generating such an income nor producing any evidence to show that this 6/ <1 Ciaim and Consequently recorded a perverse finding.
3. Whether the Appellate Authorities correct in holding that the Assessing i' has estimated the agriculture ineomejtjf it as-sessee by <:onside1-ir1g,..,.the _-'"eVid'_'ene'e,'_V.V collected for the earlier:=__assetssm--ent..' when the assessee has not produeedariy evidence to show'-v..t.p>""t.hat Vwas improvement in maint.enp'anee_ of t"h-e,.fa1'm.
excess land Vb1_"C:?"L,1__$:{1'1_f. ;_'o.n1:ievrA"'iagriCu1ture operatio;'n, :i4r1'(tr4e'azS:t:~ in productivity and ir1ereas'e_ inf"=.pri.e.e's_"g:i' agriculture produce con'ip_ar'ed to preV,i.o.t1s year. Appeliate authorities were it reversing the finding of the officer that the coneiusion that the exeess" agriculturai income deciared by the assessee was nothing but income of the fassessee chargeable to tax under the head 2*' 'Income from other Sources'. as iileomele derived by the assessee from other SOL1If§3_€fiS..f".:4"y.
2. During the course of argument to our notice that in respect: ofithe"ass«esseeV:"family" for the earlier year of assessmeht, thiyS'.iAAl'Court l.T.A.No.4~20/2001 dated 11l¥'~l:2+2OU.7V"h_e1Srallislllilétflleled that matter only to consider the ir1--e_ome..& from selling the coconut of 150 nuts per tree pe1'"3§e}ar =.eo2"3vfi:r1lf1'ed....,V.fthe order of the TI'ibL17J_f1al._lE1 lre.sVp._e€:«t o'f._ot~her horticultural fruits. In View of thellsame. "vtheA"1_ear_h'ed counsel for t.he revenue eonjieiids thatfllhe presem ease also requires to be the Assessing Officer to consider the value derived by the assessee during the H year.
rele'var:t..year taking the yield I50 nuts per tree per
3. Per Contra iVEr.Shankar. learned COUHS€l' assessee contends that there is no neeesfsity..i°or"this Court to remand the matter to~:re~--e.ons_<ider "tshe ease of A the coconut as the doeun1ei1ts«V_h'a_d(beeri '~.vp«rodiiee'd_V before the First Appellate to shiofw fndarketdd value of the coconut w1x1jeh'Waslvi.ilioVt"ayailabvie the ease remanded earlier. At :of__thel_';ap'peal papers, we notice that the.._a':3ses_see the rate of each coconut at R,s".4/9'"--ri:,1lri£.:g"tVhe r'e_1evant assessment year and HOPCOl\}I:Sf-._fiévhieh""'~is 'a recognised Government organisatiori _ha's_ sI:{owri;in its sales statistics the value of ..eoeoi1.ut 7. per nut during the relevant period. ' ;B'a~sed_A_v same the first Appellate Authority has Valuatioii shown by the assessee. The sarrae. is also confirmed by the Tribunal. As rightly polinted out by Sri.Seshaehala, if the Appellate e/A " .1 Authorities had no occasion to consider f'he'._°saies statistics maintained by the Goxrernmentfi)epa:rtri*;eri't we could have remanded the :i1at't--e1" to Authority for fresh consideratiori in.thepreser1t»_.cas'e_ also. Since such exercise 'has,been'----do'ne"_:by2pthe First V Appellate Authority and Which has also been confirmed Authority, we are of the t.o remand the matter to consider the Value of 'relevant assessment year.
Theretor§_._ pvt;/e' any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, _:f0llouri:'ogVA"'the order of this Court in ITA 42l@.}2O01'"dpat,ed«lfl'§V12»2O07 the present appeal has to ' -.. beg diisn'f1i.sscd-.. V V ~ Weilhave also noticed that in all there were 18 appeaivs" before the Commissioner of Income Tax 'W.(VAppeals) but as against 18 appeals, appeals are 8%, preferred only in 10 ma.tt:e1"s by revehue.vV.Vll.r_1i'the remaining 8 matters the revenue has not orders passed by the authorities.» All » before CET {Appeals} were filediiby agricultural lands and the'a'g1jlctult,ura1 divided as per their if the revenue has accepted" CIT {Appeals}, in respect of permitted to Cha11enge___-the_ ~..iI1lfC;omeWin respect of the remaining' a'cr:Vj»~_Qwif1'e1's'.l'gill vievl} of the same the present JUDGE i_ Sd/~ IUDGE