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