Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh ~ v. Snri Rana Ranjit Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 551 of 2009 (O&M)Decided on: 17.07.2014 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh~.. PetitionerVersusSnri Rana Ranjit Singh... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH PRESENT:Ms. Urvashi Dnugga, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ++++ AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The present appeal has been filed by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) againstthe order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’(for brevity “the Tribunal”) passed in ITA No. 200/CHANDI/2007 dated25.10.2007 for the assessment year 2002-03, claiming the followingsubstantial questions of law: (1) Wnether the processing of raw peas into pea seeds isa process ordinarily employed by the cultivator withintne meaning of Section 2(1A)(b)(i) or 2(1A)(D)(ili) inspite of the admission of the assessee in hisstatement on oatn dated 28.07.2000 tnat tnere wasHindustan Lever Canning Plant which provides readymarket for raw peas?a process ordinarily employed by the cultivator withintne meaning of Section 2(1A)(b)(i) or 2(1A)(D)(ili) inspite of the admission of the assessee in hisstatement on oatn dated 28.07.2000 tnat tnere wasHindustan Lever Canning Plant which provides readymarket for raw peas? (ii)Whether the Honble ITAT has erred in holding thattne assessee only employed an ordinary procedure ofuprooting the plant and after thrashing andwinnowing the same converted such plant of rawtne assessee only employed an ordinary procedure ofuprooting the plant and after thrashing andwinnowing the same converted such plant of raw peas into pea seeds witn a view to make the same asfit to be taken to market as there was no readymarket available for the sale of raw peas. This wasSO in spite of the admission of the assessee himself innis statement on oatn dated 28.07.2000 tnat tnerewas Hindustan Lever Canning Plant which providesready market for raw peas? (iii)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in holding thattnere is no incremental profit to be taxed as non-agricultural income under Rule 7(1) and /(2) if theprevailing market rate of raw peas is taken intoconsideration, whereas tne assessee in hiscalculations before the A.O. on 09.06.2000 hasnimself worked out the incremental profits ? 2.Learned counsel for the revenue nas very fairly concededtnat issue raised in the present appeal is identical to one raised in ITANo. 396 of 2005 decided on 03.02.2011. It was submitted by thelearned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had also relied uponits earlier order, whicn was under challenge in that appeal. It wasfurther submitted that all the questions have been decided against therevenue and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed. 3.In view of above, the present appeal is dismissed. 4 Since the present appeal has been dismissed on merits noorders are required to be passed on the application for condonation ofdelay in re-filing the appeal. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE (JASPAL SINGH)JUDGE