Tca/591/2017 Of K. Sengottaiyan v. The Incometax Officer

Tax Case nos.519, 610 to 612 of 2017 Appeal Against the order of the commissioner of Income Tax(appeals)-3, Combatore, dated 15.3.2016 and against the IncomeTax officer, Ward -2. (5) and Ward II(2), Erode. Order dated25/09/2015 and made in /Tan No.BEUPS 3598L fo the Assessmentyear 2012-2013,2010-11, and 2009-2010. APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order 23.2.2017 made in M.A.No.245/Mds/2016 inITA.No.1017/Mds/2014 as well as the common order dated 24.8.2016made in ITA.Nos.1015 to 1017/ Mds/2014 on the file of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B/SMC' Bench respectively forthe assessment years 2011-12 and 2009-10 to 2011-12. COMMON JUDGMENT Heard both. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. These appeals have been filed raising the followingsubstantial question of law : "TCA.Nos.591 & 610 to 612 of 2017 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the estimationmade by the Assessing Officer for coconut trees was aboveaverage and therefore, correct without considering that the saleof coconuts with husk from the assessee's garden was at a ratehigher than the market price prevalent in the market committee ? TCA.Nos.610 to 612 of 2017 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Tribunal was right in law in not holding that the AssessingOfficer ought to have considered the sale price of the coconuthusk in arriving at the agricultural income ? " 3. The appellant filed these appeals against the orderspassed by the Tribunal in both the appeals and a miscellaneouspetition for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12. 4. The only issue, which falls for consideration, is as towhether the estimation arrived at with regard to the yielding ofcoconuts per tree and the rate, at which, the coconuts were soldby the assessee as declared in his returns were just and proper.The petitioner's contention before the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) is that they had produced a letter from theAssistant Director, Department of Agriculture, Bhavani, ErodeDistrict stating that the age of the trees is more than 15 yearson average, and that usually, after 10 years of planting, therewould be stable yield and that would be maintained for another20 years. 5. The assessee's case is that the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) did not properly consider the opinion of theexpert, but came to the conclusion that the trees were aged only15 years and not more than 15 years as opined by the expert.Therefore, it is submitted that the estimation arrived at by theAssessing Officer, as confirmed by the Commissioner of IncomeTax (Appeals) by reducing 5% in the yielding capacity ascertified by the Agriculture Department is incorrect. 6. On a perusal of the orders passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals), it is seen that the he has done a thoroughexercise and arrived at the rates and concurred with the opinionof the Assessing Officer. The appellant canvassed the very sameground before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal, afterappreciating the factual position, held that the estimation madeby the Assessing Officer has been done both with regard to theyielding capacity as well as the rate per coconut in each tree. 7. The assessee would place reliance on the decision of theTribunal in the assessee's wife's case in I.T.A.Nos.1013 and1014/Mds/2016 dated 30.11.2016. On a perusal of the order dated30.11.2016, we find that the assessee therein conceded beforethe Tribunal and permitted the Tribunal in its wisdom to fixappropriate rate. The Tribunal, after considering the facts ofthe said case, passed the order. Thus, this Court is of the viewthat the entire issue involved in these appeals is fully factualand no substantial question of law arises for consideration inthese appeals. 8. Accordingly, the above tax case appeals are dismissed. Nocosts. Consequently, the connected WMPs are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// rs Sub Assistant Registrar To 7. The assessee would place reliance on the decision of theTribunal in the assessee's wife's case in I.T.A.Nos.1013 and1014/Mds/2016 dated 30.11.2016. On a perusal of the order dated30.11.2016, we find that the assessee therein conceded beforethe Tribunal and permitted the Tribunal in its wisdom to fixappropriate rate. The Tribunal, after considering the facts ofthe said case, passed the order. Thus, this Court is of the viewthat the entire issue involved in these appeals is fully factualand no substantial question of law arises for consideration inthese appeals. 8. Accordingly, the above tax case appeals are dismissed. Nocosts. Consequently, the connected WMPs are also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// rs Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(5), Chennai-34. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B/SMC' Bench. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (appeas)-3,Coimbatore. 4.The Income Tax officer, ward-II(2), Erode. +4cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate,S.R.No. ,89797,89798 +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.88582 TCA.Nos.591 and 610 to 612/2017& CMP.Nos.15510 & 15511/2017 NMI(CO)RRK(17/01/2018)