Karnataka High Court
The Commr Of Income Tax vs M R Anandaram (Huf) on 16 December, 2009
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGAq;OiR§:%.%A'
DATED THIS THE 16m DAY OF' DEC EMBER. "
PREsENT_M-wA7'?
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTECEA: K1... 3
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUsT1<;1«: ARAVIN13: ii 'A
I.T.A NO: 138:2; 2oQw6
BETWEEN
1.
, '_ {By '£:TaV.1"iVv.1L\#I.\V/'.Séé;haQ_haia. Adv.)
;AND: _ V' _
'I:\¢I..z€*;riéi1{r:i»ar'c:.L;§{fi.. (HUF)
The C0mm.issi0ne1'*'0f f V _ _ AV :
Inc0me¢Ta;x_. _C.R=.:_BL1;i1idng., .. _
Queens'Roei;j§1,--_'_ ~ ' _
Bangi1101jé' "560. " V '\
The Dépigty C'iQ'I11_:1'1iusTsi0nerVV"
0f. Ir1c0me --té:x:_. 'C»eiV1f£_i"aI 'C'irCie--2(2) ,
C . RVBU ildin Road.
Banga_10re. ' _
003111 Hc,a1s§:.'TGoku1
V' I{.By,_$f'i.A.Shankar, Adv.)
-V Mathikkere'.
"Banga1ere.
Respondent:
$7/.
Appellants:
i\J This Appeal is filed Under Section 260~A of IIIVCOIIIG Tax Act, 1961 praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the ITAT £117 at No.2355/Bang/2004 dated ozmoazooe Confirmiiig-----.t_I1e_'_ order of Appeliate Commissioner and confirriithe-.order_ passed by the Deputy Commissioner offiicomeii. Central Circle W 2(2) Bangalore. This appeal coming on for I:'1earing,."_~Atl1is MANJUNAT!-I J, delivered the_'follow1"ng:V 3_ JUDGMENQ; T The preseriti-i_ "revenue challenging the order -1Vfo'.'fiiI3.5l5/Bang/2004 passedlViv..Aby 2~'l6--2006. The appeal was admitted onfolioiyingl._s'u.h.stantial questions of law:
f'Whether__i__/_10""' amount of Rs.220 lakhs declaredvby the assessee has its income deri"»teC1ui°rom agriculture should be accepted 'despite-.V_*iihe assessee not producing any 'evidence to show the actual expenditure * «.__incurred for generating such an income nor 6?'.
producing any evidence to show that income was derived by the assessee sale of products grown in these lands and consequently rec:'ordled« a'-,pe.;rv.ers_eV V' finding'?
2. Whether the Appe1i'a_te~._yAuthorities'?were"
correct in not examinyinef.tl1'e_V evildenvcpeyin support of the tiha§wt.he_'a's'sessee had agriculture incorne ..'--V--~Currer1t aSS6SSII1:€17il# '_\rea1§f_ any materialinis-ii--ppoi't_1'o.f s-1L1eh a claim and by relyingi' mere conjectures and surrnises of orders_ pa.sVse'd.Vfo.r"earlier years when each assessment' yea.r"wfas a separate entity and yjespecially A. V when agriculture income defienvded on various uncertain "'cir'c_u1r£sAtances like water. weather, material, 'yield. marketability of the product. acceptance of the product etc. when it . there was no evidence to support such a claim and consequently recorded a perverse finding?
3. Whether the Appellate .Aut_hori_ties"
correct in holding that it has estimated the agriculturelincomeof assessee by consideififig. the' 'ev_i.der:.bceVVV collected for the earlier..."assessment»._.year when the assess'ele_has any evidence __to was irnproVe;i"I1e%jt" int, the farm, excess v1'a.n'd ' broju _ under agriculture ovperatiorrh iiftcrease in productivity and increase .in=.""prices-.,_o.f agriculture produce comfaared to . pr~s:Vio_us year'? Appellate authorities were correct_ in reversing the finding of the it officer that the Conclusion that v_.=threl'.V'e§{cess agricultural income declared " _l:y the assessee was nothing but income of the assessee chargeable to tax under .6"
the head 'Income from other Sources', income derived by the assessee fr0m_.c{there.' 1' sources?"
2. During the course of iteevzes to our notice that in respect*v--efw--the es--sesSee for he the earlier Year of theiee"'Cb:urt in I.T.A.No.420/2001 datede a1L1§ h:afe'_'remanded the matter only from selling the' the yield of 150 nuts per tree per' order of the Tribunal in reespeeteof fruits. In View of the sarne._ the eeeunsel for the revenue Cc3I1_te11ds"'t"th2it'the presetit case also requires to be ti) Officer to consider the Value cdcontit. -tieerived by the assessee during the ,y'ear*'teking the yield as 150 nuts per tree per aft/'
3. Per contra Mr.Shankar, learned C0Un.'§€'}--.'fQ.1j:'ffi§}'4 assessee contends that there is no nece.ssiut'y.Vv this "
Court to remand the matter to izemconsfider the coconut as the documents had been"iA'produ:ice.d before the First Appellate AutV1:i'oriity_toVshoiavdthevgrnaritet Value of the coconut v.%asi-not._aVai}_ab1e in the case remanded earlier, At the papers, we -
notice that rate of each coconutat Rsita assessment year and recognised Government organisation has 's.how'i:..i.i1 its sales statistics the value «of oo;eo:itatVVpat i{s';6,[_:_¢per nut during the relevant period. Based same the first Appellate Authority has accepted' tth'eV..a'vva1uat.ion shown by the assessee. The "same ~is"';a1so confirmed by the Tribunal. As rightly out by Sri.Seshaeha1a, if the Appeliate €79/to Authorities had no occasion to Consider the"'*sa1e's4 statistics maintained by the Government V' we could have remanded the m:attfe1'«.to'l_ithel Authority for fresh considerationl'i_n'--_the also. Since such exercise Appellate Authority 'in it ahlclwhlich has also been confirmed Authority. we are of the to remand the matter to Consider the value of the assessment year.
Therefore' we "any merit in this appeal. Aooordinglylllll the order of this Court in ITA . dated 1l:l2--2007 the present appeal has to be d_istmi..s'se'd. - . V
4. ,,,,'\We:"'have also raoticeci that in all there were 18 it Vttappealslfloefore the Commissioner of income Tax '(A-rppeals) but as against. 18 appeals, appeals are 45/ preferred only in 10 matters by revenue. remaining 8 matters the revenue has not Chal_l;enge(}--.:tifie_j_ _ orders passed by the authOritieSt">V.A.}.} appeals W before CIT{A) were filed by the :_t:ae:0\ivne'rls"' agricultural lands and the agricultural' divided as per their respective if the revenue has acceptedvtlieO14aerfsp:.pf"tlieCIT(Appeals}, in respect of few permitted to challenge ir3.'ceii1e in respect of the remaining edsafivners. _lI'n_'view of the same the present appeal ts ii sd/~ iiiii IUDGE Sd/-
Itux3E