Itta/206/2010 Of Smt. C. Girija Devi v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL [NO: ][206 ] [2010] lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal under [Section ][260-4 ][of ][the ][lncome Tax Act]196'1 against order dated 30-09-2009 [in ][lTA.No. ][745 ][lHydl2009, ][on ][the ][file ][of]lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad B [Bench ][Hyderabad, ][for ][the]assessment year 2004-05.Between: Smt. C. Girija Devi, D.No. 5-8-93, [Nampally Station ][Road' ][Hyderabad.] .,.APPELLANT AND lncome Tax Officer, Ward [- ][7(1 ]) [Hyderabad.] ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. MAHEESH Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. [B. ] COUNSEL FOR INGOME The Court delivered the following [Judgment ][:] TIII] TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAIVI KOSIIYANDTIIE HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICII NARSING RAO NANDIKONDAINCOMIi TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.206 OF 20t0 JUDGMENT(pcr llttn blr Sri Jrtstitc l'.Sum Kosht,) IJeard Mr. Maheesh Mahinvith, leamed counsel tbl thc appellant and Ms. B. Sapna Redcly, lealned Senior Standing Counstrl lilr Income TaxI)epaftment, appearing 1br the resporrdcnt.2. Thc instant appeal undcr Section 260A olthe Incorne Trtx Act, 1961, hasbeen prclerred the appcllant against the order datcd 30.09.201)!t [passed ]by theIncome Tax Appellatc ['lribunal, ]Hyderabad ["B" ]Ben:lr. Ilyderabad,It1I.T.A.No.745lHydl2009 lbr the Assessment Year 2004-05 3. It is the case u,lrere tlie learnccl Tribunal has set asidc thr: order passed bythe CIT(A), dated 1i.03.2009, which stood in lavour of th: asscssee directingthe Assessing Officer to accept the agricultural incorne decl,rrcd by the assessceto the extent of Rs.7 lakhs and had partly allowed the clain o [' ]the appellant sofar as the agricuitural income shorvn in thc course filing o1' the appeallsconcerned 4. The facts of the case in briel' is that the Assessing Ollicer, at the firstinstance, haC refused to add an amount of Rs. I 4,20,500/ ,'lrelting it as the agricultural income and rather assessed it to be the income from other sources.The order of the Assessing Officer dated,29.12.2006 was subjected to challengebefore the CIT(A) and CIT(A), vide its order dated 13.03.2009 had allowed theappeal ol the assessee and had granted the benefit of treating the entire amountof Rs. 14,20,500/- as agricultural incomc. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A),the revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal, where the matter was registeredas I.T.A.No.745lHyd/2009. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 30.09.2009 hasparlly allowed the appeal of thc asscssee to the extent of tleating half of theamount claimed by the assessee towards the agricultural income and theremaining half was ordered to be treated as income fiom other soutces. It is thisorder which is under chal[enge by the assessee insofar as not granting thebenefit to the entire amounf of Rs. 14,20,500/- to be treated as agriculturallncome 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there was no strongmaterial available for thc Tribunal to have interfered with the order of thcCIT(A), as the order of the CIT(A) was bascd upon the fresh inspectiorl reportsubmitted by the Ward Inspector who had subsequently again visited theagricultural fields ofthe assessee and had given a report ofbeing satisfied of thenature ofagriculture and the operations being carried out by the appellant. ,/ 6, 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there was no strongmaterial available for thc Tribunal to have interfered with the order of thcCIT(A), as the order of the CIT(A) was bascd upon the fresh inspectiorl reportsubmitted by the Ward Inspector who had subsequently again visited theagricultural fields ofthe assessee and had given a report ofbeing satisfied of thenature ofagriculture and the operations being carried out by the appellant. ,/ 6, However, upon perusal ol'the records, we find that the ,\s:iessing [Officer,]at the first instance, had himself pelsonally visited the agrictltural [field of ][the]assessee and found that for the entile [patch ]ol [lands, there ][rvete ][only ][a ][srnall]three year otd fiuit bearing trees which are [not ][yet ][started ][y ][ielding fruits ][and]therefore, the Assessing Offlcer found that the agricultural [inr:orne ][to ][be ][highly]disproportionate, more [particularly, fbr ]the [reason ][that ][this altricultural ][income]for the Assessment Year 2004-05 was more than -500 times [than rvhat ][it ][was ][hve]years back. Further, this Bench also finds that even altcr th: remand and theWard lnspector, who was also sent to ttre field and has [given ]atmost the satnenature of report except for the age of the plants those are [1r-urt ]bearing treeswhich again has rightly been disbelieved by the Tribunal as [rvith ]that age andwith that size of the plants, the amount of fruits that could be collected also\ould not be to the magnitude of what has been claimed by the assessee. 7. The Tribunal, on the other hand, having taken a pragrlatic view, hastaken into account the amount of the agricultural income, clairned by theassessee, which was accepted by the Assessing Officers in thr: previous fiveyears and has given the similar benefit to the appellant assesjee also i.e., fromthe amount of Rs.14,20,500 declared by the appellant to bc the agriculturalincome. The Tribunal has given the benefit of Rs.7 lakhs to vards agricultural income, taking into account the income which was generated from the samearea ofland in thc previous couple of yearsarea ofland in thc previous couple of years 8. On plain perusal of the findings given in paragraph No.S of the order ofthe Tribunal, we flnd that there is sufficient explanation given by the Tribunal inpartly allowing the appeal of the appellant and partly disallowing the claim intoto, as claimed by the assessee. The said hnding being entirely the finding offact and with plausible justification, we do not find any strong case made out bythe appellant calling for interference to the impugned order of the Tribunal. 9. The instant appeal fails and is accordingly disinissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/.K. SREE RAMA DEPUWREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//SEko,o.r* To, 1. The lncome Tax [Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ] [Bench, Hyderabad] 2. One CC to SRl. [Maheesh ][Mahinvith' ][Advocate ][ ] 3. One CC to [Ms. B. ][Sapna Reddy, Senior Standing Counsel ][for ][lT']Department, Department, 4. Two CD CoPies kulikam (\' HIGH COURTDATED:09/07/2025 (onFilA/4:(_),JUDGMENTi1-('i:i 03 SEP206:.-t\ITTA.No.206 of 2010\\. i:/\:. DISMISSING THE ITTA WITHOUT COSTS G-tq"LS6.