Tax Case v. M/S Chhattisgarh Investment Limited

IW./•^IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURTAXCASE 4<T /07^<5T'9APPEALUWT:-COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAXRAIPUR(C.G.)VERSUSM/s Chhatb'sgarh Inv^tmentLimitedP-49, Industrial PseaUria,Raipur(C.G.)A-«uua-*-r__tT/<-»<fl_^QB^-HEJN£;DJME_T^ACT1961, L-..---- ^.,7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURDIVISION BENCH CORAM:HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J.HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J Tax Case No. 45 of 2009Commissioner of Income Tax Raipur C.G.VERSUSM/s Chhattisgarh Investment Limited Appeltant Resoondent Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. 1961 Appearance: Shri Anand Dadaria, counsel for the Appellant.Shri Neelabh Dubey, counsel for the Respondent. JUDGEMENT (13thMarch,2013) 1.M/s Chhattisgarh Investment Limited P-49, Raipur (the Assessee) isengaged in the business of trading of shares and agricultural activities.The Assessee filed ineome-tax return for the assessment year (AY)2002-03 on 30.10.2002 in which the total income shown was nil andexemption for agricultural income was shown as ^1,32,04,857/-. 2.The Assessing Ofificer issued notices and thereafter, considering theexplanation given by the Assessee added an income of ^27,53,669/-. 3.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee filed an appeal.Itwas allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (the CIT-A) on27.03.2006. 4.The Income-tax Department (the Department) filed an appeal beforethe Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (the Tribunal).•It was dismissed on 30.10.2006. Hence, the present appeal.the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (the Tribunal).•It was dismissed on 30.10.2006. Hence, the present appeal. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties. 6.This Court had admitted the appeal on 20.08.2010 on the followingsubstantial question of law: 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, additionmade by the Assessing Officer of ^27,53.669/- rejecting the claimof the Assessee that the same was earned by cultivating Bananawas rightly reversed by CIT(A) andITAT as finding of the ',--%. nimmi Assessing Officer was recorded by applying the test of humanprobabilities and calculation based on objective manner?' 7.The Assessing Officer had added the addition on the ground that nobanana cultivation was done by the assessee and yet income frombanana cultivation was shown.However,this finding was reversed bythe CIT-A mentioning that documents have been filed to show that theAssessee had done banana cultivation and in the preceding year incomewas ^17,080/- per acre was accepted by the Assessing Officer.As forthis year the income claimed was ^19,175/- per acre, it was held to bejustified.It is on this finding, he reversed the finding recorded by theAssessing Officer and deleted the addition.banana cultivation was done by the assessee and yet income frombanana cultivation was shown.However,this finding was reversed bythe CIT-A mentioning that documents have been filed to show that theAssessee had done banana cultivation and in the preceding year incomewas ^17,080/- per acre was accepted by the Assessing Officer.As forthis year the income claimed was ^19,175/- per acre, it was held to bejustified.It is on this finding, he reversed the finding recorded by theAssessing Officer and deleted the addition. 8.The Tribunal has affirmed the flnding recorded by the CIT-A.Thequestion whether the addition of ^27,53,669/- was validly added by theAssessing Officer or not is a question of fact. There is no illegality in thefinding recorded by the CIT-A or by the Tribunal. 9. The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.Sd/'.Sd/-PritinkerDiwakerChief JusticeJudge 'L