Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BANGALORE BENCH ‘ C ’
Before: SHRI JASON P BOAZ
Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Bangalore dt.20.02.2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under : 2.1 The assessee, a company engaged in Dairy farming, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 30.09.2014 declaring loss of (-) Rs.1,04,620 after claiming exemption of Rs.27,70,000 under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The case was picked up for scrutiny for Assessment Year 2013-14 and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.24.3.2016, wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.26,65,380 in view of the Assessing Officer denying the assessee's entire claim for exemption under Section 10(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.27,70,000. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) – 4, Bangalore who dismissed the assessee's appeal vide the impugned order dt.20.2.2018.
The assessee, being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals) – 4, Bangalore dt.20.2.2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14 has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal, wherein it has raised the following grounds :-
4. Ground Nos.1, 6 & 7 being general in nature, no adjudication is called for thereon.
5. Ground No.5 – Sale of Hens. 5.1 In this ground, the assessee contends that the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding the Assessing Officer’s view that there was no evidence brought on record by the assessee to establish that it had earned income to the extent of Rs.15,30,000 from sale of hens. Before us, on being queried on this issue, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee is not pressing this ground as it has no proof to establish that such activity was in fact carried out by the assessee. In these circumstances, this ground No.5, being not pressed, is rendered infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 6. Ground Nos.2 to 4 - Sale of Mangoes. 6.1 In these grounds, the assessee assails the orders of the authorities below in holding that there are no mango trees on the land leased for carrying on dairy farming activities and that the assessee had filed no material evidence to establish sale of mangoes. According to the assessee there were 1800 full grown mango trees already existing on the agricultural land taken on lease for its daily farming activities and it is mangoes yielded from such existing trees that resulted in the assessee earning income from sale of mangoes. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee was heard in respect of the grounds raised. In support of the assessee's contention, that there existed mango trees on the said land from which it earned income, the learned
Authorised Representative placed on record a copy of certificate issued by the Dy. Tahsildar, Thyamagondly Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District. It was submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that, in view of the above, it is evident that mango trees existed on the said land taken on the lease by the assessee and therefore the Assessing Officer’s view that there were no mango trees on the said land was erroneous. 6.2 Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. She further submitted that since the aforesaid copy of certificate issued by Tahsildar, Thyamagondly Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District was never placed before the Assessing Officer by the assessee, the same should not be accepted at face value and therefore the entire issue of income from sale of mangoes from trees that existed on the said lands should be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification of the assessee's claims. 6.3.1 I have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record. The facts that emanate from the record are that the assessee, in its return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14, claimed that it had earned income of Rs.11,80,000 from sale of mangoes. In assessment proceedings, on examination of the assessee's claim, the Assessing Officer rejected the same on the ground that the bills filed were self made without any signature; that no confirmations were filed by the persons to whom the mangoes were sold and further that no proof was furnished to establish that mango trees existed on that leased land. 6.3.2 Before me the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee has filed a copy of Certificate from the Tahsildar, Thyamagondly Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore as evidence to claim that mango trees actually existed on the land taken on lease by the assessee. As rightly pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative for revenue, this document was never placed before the Assessing Officer or CIT(Appeals) and therefore is tentamount to fresh / new evidence which requires examination / verification by the Assessing Officer in connection with the assessee's claim for earning income from sale of mangoes. In these factual circumstances, as mentioned above, I am of the considered view that since the Certificate of Tahsildar, Thyamagondly Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District filed by the assessee before me was not filed in proceedings before the authorities below and also that this Certificate constituting evidence that could go to the root of the examination of the assessee's claim for having earned income from sale of mangoes from trees already existing on the leased land, it would only be in the fitness of things and interest of substantial justice that the same evidence be admitted and this matter; of the income earned by the assessee from sale of mangoes; be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo examination and verification. Needless to add, the Assessing Officer shall afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to file details / submissions required, which shall be duly considered before deciding the issue. It is accordingly directed. Consequently, grounds 2 to 4 of assessee's appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 28th day of Sept., 2018.