IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
DATED THIS THE 16%: DAY OF' DEC EMSf:3R,~
PRESENT """
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A::<A\r11\;:);"i:,;.I1,x(;g§_E2;
I.'I'.A NO: 1358.1/_2--Q06' ' ''
BETWEEN 'A ' %
1. Th€COEI1l}1iSSiOI1'€i"0f v_ 'V
Income-~'1'ax _L-- C.R.Bgui}'id11g';' ..
Qu6€nSR6:é1c1.AV}. 1%
Bangalofe'. 9% 580 I
2.
II1CO.rIitT{E':.'95X; ..C"e1j1t'ra'i CirCIe~2(2],
C'.«R.Bui1d_if1gj,'.Qu¢_én<:s' Road,
Bafiggalore.' . '
(By?f..s:iF;~M.v.éeeha¢_;:..a1a. Adv.)
avathy
Bangaidre.
A' {By Sri.A.Shankar. Adv.)
Gokul }i01;ése, Gokul
Mathikkgre,
Respondent:
{V
Appellants:
ix.)
This Appeal is filed Under Section 260–A of Income
Tax Act. 1961 praying to allow the appeal and se_t.__aside
the order passed by the ITAT in’, VITA
No.2352/Bang/2004 dated 02-06-2006 confir={_ni–ng.Vgthe
order of Appellate Commissioner and CO1’1flI’_T;i”1″‘thC-.._0i;¢§.§)I”«p
passed by the 1337., Corr1mnr.. of Income
Circle M 2(2) Bangalore.
This appeal coming on Iipfori _
MANJUNATH J , delivered the following :
Juneixlgaigi:
The present appeal is,2-by:the”-reveniiechallenging
the order in ITA ‘passed by the
ITAT dated admitted on
following substantial law:
1. V\’.e:”al1etl;ei” ll/’l”O1l%__’_anv’iount of RS220 lakhs
assessee has its income
%igti~culture should be accepted
despite the’:’3-alssessee not producing any
‘.e.videncev”‘ttoV Show the actual expenditure
2ll’dlineunjedllfor generating such an income nor
any evidence to show that this
«<4
income was derived by the assessee frorr;
sale of products grown in these agricultural._:"._
lands and consequently recorded a pe1~'«Vers-el_i' , A'
finding'?
2. Whether the Appellate: A1_iAt;1liorit.ies.l
correct in not examining ‘thev«evidei*1ceV in
support of the claim tvlrlatiyi.he.
agriculture income thell”cL1r.rEer1t
assessment year..l:i”v\zitlio’:jg’tVl. any
material in suppworit and by
relying_on_mere§;conj.ecturesfandfsurmises of
orders foifearlier years when each
as_ses_sn7;enti.V”year_. a separate entity and
especially ll . agriculture income
‘ ‘depended. V_ H V on various uncertain
‘ci-rculmstances like water, weather, material,
marketability of the product,
it”vlmarliietlyacceptance of the product etc, when
there*”was no evidence to support such a
finding?
cl’aim and consequently recorded a perverse
{:7/..
3. Whether the Appellate Authorities were
correct in holding that. the Assessing Officer
has estimated the agriculture income of
assessee by considering the evitieijice’
collected for the earlier assessmei-it
when the assessee has I__1o.t.__produce’d..fVarjyitg
evidence to show
improvement in rr1ai»1i1te1;1ancAe”~of th.e’-lifavrna, it
excess land brought.._ under ‘ ~- . agrfcul’iiure
operation, increase in “vpr’o.ducti§fit.y. and
increase in pri–c_es_Aof agrieuvltpure produce
to-fpi’eVio_us year?
4. ‘Whether.’th.e” Vigippellatue authorities were
” t..corre’ct_Vin reversing the finding of the
if’assessingfluoliicer that the conclusion that
it “-v.,tlie”..excess agricultural income declared
assessee was nothing but income
{oi”the assessee chargeable to tax under
H-the head ‘Income from other Sources’, as
relevant”.j¢*ea1*v:Ataking the yield as 150 nuts per tree per
_ _yea”12. H * n
income derived by the assessee frOH1.t.0_thVeI” V.
sources?”
2. During the course of
to our notice that in respe4.:t_of
the earlier year of tfiourt in
I.T.A.No.-420/2001. 11 has rernanded the
matter only from
selling the of I50 nuts
P31′ ‘T39 the order of the
Tribunal in!reeneet-“o*I._oth>er:’.h’ortie-ultural fruits. In View
of the for the revenue
Contendegdthat the ~ tireserlt case also requires to be
remanded to t.}1exAssessing Officer to consider the vaiue
of the_ ‘”eoeoVf1ti’tv..’_derh/ed by the assessee during the
(EV,
Authorities had no occasion to consider the’»..:s«ales
statistics maintained by the Government.
We could have remanded the rnatter_to’_”
Authority for fresh considerationinlthelldpriesent
also. Since such exerciselii-as*~..been done First l’
Appellate Authority in’ the e”as_e anciwhieh has
also been confirmed thle Authority.
we are of to remand
the consider the value
of assessment year.
Therefore}! “we ‘ any merit. in this appeal.
Aeco:rdi.ng1y: follofiving the order of this Court in ITA
– “dated ll:’l§ll2~2007 the present appeal has to
‘–be-idismissedff – . V
have also noticed that in all there were 18
Vpdapppealsa-* before the Commissioner of Income Tax
(appeals) but as against 18 appeals, appeals are
N
preferred only in 10 matters by revenue. In the
remaining 8 matters the revenue has not cha11eh.geei.<:'_:the
orders passed by the authorities. All the
before CI'I'[A] were filed by the "'
agricultural lands and the
divided as per their respeetiiie'=,sharevs.V: Vv.if:thve
revenue has accepted the in
respect of few permitted to
Challenge the fagr_iCu1i'£1ra1f"&irietjme 'respect of the
remaining e0'~-5€;wne11fs.vievJ of the same the. present
appeal is«{Viisr11issVedQf– V'
Sd/-
JUDGE
\ Sd/—
IUDGE