By Sri v. Chandrasekhar, Advocate Forsri M. Lava, Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUON THE 18 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018. BEFORE. THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND| THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN | INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2 OF 2010 BEI|WEEN SHRI A. NAGARAJU, EX.MLA,NO.282, 11 CROSS, 2 PHASE,|MANJUNATHANAGAR,BANGALOER., .. APPELLAWN I | (BY SRI V. CHANDRASEKHAR, ADVOCATE FORSRI M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) AND" THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER|WARD 9(2), IIIT FLOOR,JEEVAN SAMPAGIE BUILDING,MALLESHWARAM,BANGALORE-560 003. | ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS|INCOMETAXAPPEAL|ISFILEDUNDER|SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961, ARISING|OUT OF ORDER DATED 21-08-2009 PASSED IN INCOME.TAX APPEAL NO.413/BNG/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT|YEAR2005-2006,PRAYING TOFORMULATETHE|SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN;|ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED|BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE ININCOME|TAXAPPEAL|NO.413/BNG/2009,DATED ©21-08-2009, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. AK AK THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR THISDAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The assessee is an individual. He filed his return ofincome for the asst. year 2005-2006 on 31.01.2007,declaringtnetota|incomeOf|Rs.2,88,000/-.and.agricultural income of Rs.22,20,000/-. On selection of the)case for scrutiny, Notices were issued to the assessee.Tnereafter, the Assessing Officer added the following|amounts to the return of income: 2).Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filedbefore the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), whereinthe appeal was partly allowed, while accepting 25% of the)agricultural income declared by the appellant. Questioning|the same, the matter was taken before the Tribunal. The|Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal|by the assessee. | ‘3.By the order dated 12.04.2010, the appeal wasadmitted to consider the following substantial questions of|law: Whether the Tribunal was Justified in lawin confirming the estimation made by theAssessing Officer in respect of agriculturalincome at 25% on tne agricultural income declared by the appellant on the facts andcircumstances of the case and consequentlygave a perverse finding? D)Whether the Tribunal was Justified inlevying interest under Section-234 A, 234 B,and 234 C of the Act on the facts andscircumstances of the case?”| 4Sri.V.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the|appellant contends that substantial material was placed)before the Assessing Officer, which he has failed to)consider. Tnat tne material with regard to the assessee’s|ownership of 15 acres of land and other relevant material|pertaining to the same was not at all considered by the.Assessing Officer. The counsel has accordingly placed onrecord the said material before this Court. 5.The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue.| 6.We have considered the material placed before us. Tne assessee nas adaressead a jetter dated 31.17.7007 to the Income tax Officer with regard to production ofvarious material Defore him. Tne same includes tne RIC!extracts for 15 acres of land, the lease agreement for theland in question and various other documents. J.On perusal of the same, we firstly find that thedocuments nave been produced on 31.12.2007. The order.of the Assessing Officer was passed on 28.12.2007. Thereis even a noting in the order of the Assessing Officer that|whentnematterWaSlistedOn|18.12.200/,anadjournment was sought for upto 24.12.2007. That on.24.12.2007, neither the assessee appeared nor hecomplied with the requirements as per the communication|dated 11.17.700/. 8.Secondly, the so-called material was notproduced before the impugned order was passed by theAssessing Officer. He has since passed the order on.28.12.2007. Therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot beDilamead for non-consideration of the material. Tne assesse has deliberately not appeared before the Assessing Officeror furnisned tne documents. J.On perusal of the same, we firstly find that thedocuments nave been produced on 31.12.2007. The order.of the Assessing Officer was passed on 28.12.2007. Thereis even a noting in the order of the Assessing Officer that|whentnematterWaSlistedOn|18.12.200/,anadjournment was sought for upto 24.12.2007. That on.24.12.2007, neither the assessee appeared nor hecomplied with the requirements as per the communication|dated 11.17.700/. 8.Secondly, the so-called material was notproduced before the impugned order was passed by theAssessing Officer. He has since passed the order on.28.12.2007. Therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot beDilamead for non-consideration of the material. Tne assesse has deliberately not appeared before the Assessing Officeror furnisned tne documents. QO.Even on perusal of the material, it wouldindicate that the RIC produced was for the year 200/72008, which was not relatable to the assessment year in.question. Therefore, even if sucn material would Nave to)be reconsidered, the same would not aid the appellant,|under any circumstances. 10.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see anyreason as to why an additional opportunity should be)granted to the assessee at this stage. We have consideredthe question of remanding the matter. However, Keeping|in view the conduct of the assessee and the futility ofreconsidering the material before us, the same would not)Serve any PUFPOSE. 11.Under these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in confirming theestimation made py the Assessing Officer in accepting only 25% of the total ‘agricultural income’ declared by theassessee. [Tne substantial question of law is accordinglyanswered in favour of the revenue and against theaSS@CSSAeC Tne appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- | JUDGE | JJ. Sd/- JUDGE