DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. SUPER AGRISEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1573/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 August 2021AY 2014-159 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of income derived from agricultural operations being entitled to Section 10(1) exemption was settled by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case (ITA No. 909/Hyd/2015). The Tribunal noted that this earlier order had held that such income derived from agricultural operations is entitled to exemption. The Tribunal found no distinction in facts or law presented by the Revenue to deviate from this established precedent. Therefore, the Tribunal adopted judicial consistency and confirmed the order of the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Super Agriseeds Pvt. Ltd., is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Hyderabad, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (AO) had treated an amount of Rs. 16,99,63,316, claimed as agricultural income, as business income, leading to a total assessed income of Rs. 17,26,52,026. The assessee contended that this was agricultural income derived from its operations. The AO passed an ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee did not fully respond to notices, citing the company being non-functional with no staff. The assessee argued that it had participated to the extent possible and that the issue of agricultural income had been settled in its favour for earlier assessment years by the jurisdictional High Court and ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the income derived from the sale of agricultural produce is entitled to exemption under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as agricultural income, or if it should be treated as business income. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the income in dispute is derived from agricultural operations and should be treated as agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1). It relied on previous orders of the CIT(A) and the ITAT, which followed decisions of the jurisdictional High Court, specifically mentioning the case of Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited and the ITAT's own decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12 (ITA No. 909/Hyd/2015) and DCIT vs. Vibha Agrotech Limited. The assessee also submitted that the AO erred in passing an ex-parte order without appreciating its participation and the binding nature of the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's sole substantive ground of appeal was that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to the Section 10(1) exemption for its income derived from the sale of agricultural produce.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri Lakka Bhushanam (D.R.)
Hearing: 5.7.2021Pronounced: 23.08.2021

O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2014-15 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Hyderabad’s order dt.25.07.2019 passed in case No.10425/CIT(A)-9/Hyd/2018-19 in proceedings under Section 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grounds that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee is entitled for 10(1) exemption of its income derived from sale of agriculture produce; both the learned representatives took us to detailed lower appellate discussion to this effect reading as under :

-----Space left intentionally-----

3. Suffice to say, it has come on record that this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench order in assessee's case (ITA No.909/Hyd/2015) itself has settled the issue that such an income derived from agricultural operations is entitled for section 10(1) exemption. No distinction on facts or law has come Revenue’s side. We therefore adopt judicial consistency to confirm the CIT(A)’s order.

No other ground has been pressed before us.

4. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd Aug., 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Hyderabad, Dt. 23.08.2021. * Reddy gp Copy to : M/s. Super Agriseeds Pvt. Ltd., 8-3-1503, 5th Floor, Aakash Ganga, Plot 1. No.144, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 073 2. DCIT, Circle 3(2), Hyderabad.

3.

Pr. C I T-3, Hyderabad.

4.

CIT(Appeals)-9, Hyderabad.

5.

DR, ITAT, Hyderabad.

More judgments on Section 10(1)

All 394 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →