K.C.PALANISAMY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

All the appeals of the assessee are directed against the respective orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Coimbatore and pertain to assessment years 2003-04, 2005-06 & 2011-

Since common issue arises for consideration in all these appeals, we have heard the same together and disposing off the same by this common order. ,1444,1445/CHNY/2016 :- 2 -:

For the assessment years 2003-04 & 2005-06, the assessee is challenging penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (in short ‘the Act’ ) by the ld. Assessing Officer, which is confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A).

In fact, for assessment year 2003-04 the assessee disclosed agricultural income of `22,92,400/-, out of which the ld. Assessing Officer had taken `2,89,565/- as income from agriculture activities and balance of `20,02,840/- was assessed as unexplained cash credit in the books of accounts of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act. Similarly, for assessment year 2005-06, the assessee has claimed agricultural income of ` 24,87,650/-, out of which the ld. Assessing Officer accepted the agricultural income to the extent of `6,75,628/- and balance of `18,12,020/- was treated as unexplained cash credit in the books of accounts. The question arises for our consideration is when the assessee disclosed the income and claimed as agricultural income and the ld. Assessing Officer treated a part of the income as income not from agriculture, can there be a concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income? This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee disclosed the entire income and claimed exemption as provided in the provisions of the Act. Merely because there was a difference of opinion in estimating the agricultural income between the assessee and the ld. Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that there was a concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is not the case of the Revenue that there was no income from ,1444,1445/CHNY/2016 :- 3 -:

Now coming to assessment year 2011-12, the assessee disclosed `21,32,540/- as income from agriculture. However, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the entire claim of the assessee by treating the same as unexplained income. When the ld. Assessing Officer accepted the agricultural income for assessment years 2003-04 & 2005-06, it is not known why the ld. Assessing Officer is disallowing the entire claim of assessee. The ld. Authorized Representative of assessee submits that the land holding of the assessee is not in dispute and the cultivation of land is also not in dispute, therefore, the AO is not justified in disallowing the claim of agricultural income. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the AO has to verify the land holdings for assessment year 2011-12 and the nature of cultivation, thereafter decide the issue of agricultural income. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer ,1444,1445/CHNY/2016 :- 4 -:

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 & 2005-06 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed for statistical purposes.