T.c.a v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle I(3),Chennai-600 034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.09.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP T.C.A.NO.1414 OF 2009 Smt.C.Padma @ R.Padma Udayar,No.20, 5[th] Street, Rutland Gate,Chennai-600 006.(PAN No.AAHPP 0235H) ...Appellant vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle I(3),Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 034. ...RespondentAppeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961againsttheorderdated21.08.2009passedinI.T.A.No.728/Mds/2007 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Bench 'A', Chennai for the assessment year 2003-04preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) I, Chennai-34 dated 12.12.2006 made in ITA No.46/06-07filed against the Assessment Order of the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle I (3), Chennai-34 dated 27.03.2006 inPAN No.AAHPP0235H for the Assessment year 2003-2004. For Respondent :Ms.K.G.Usha Rani,Standing Counsel JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal, by the appellant/assessee, filed under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “the Act”), isdirected against the order dated 21.08.2009 made inI.T.A.No.728/Mds/2007 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal Bench 'A', Chennai (for brevity “the Tribunal”) for theassessment year 2003-04. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The appeal was admitted on 22.12.2009, on the followingsubstantial questions of law:-“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was correct in shiftingthe burden of proof on the appellant is correctin law when the appellant proved the claim withcontemporaneous documents? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in reducing thedisallowance by 50% even after holding that theappellant was owing and in enjoyment of 44.12.acres on agricultural land is correct in law?and 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case the Tribunal was right in recordingfinding that the certificate issued by H.AktharBasha was treated as fictitious and not as factis correct in law?” 3.Heard Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearingforMr.S.RameshKumar,learnedcounselfortheappellant/assessee and Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, learned StandingCounsel appearing for the respondent/Revenue. 4.The assessee, an individual, filed her return of incomefor the assessment year 2003-04 reporting total income ofRs.8,34,150/- of which, the assessee claimed a sum ofRs.7,38,362/- to be agricultural income. The Assessing Officerdid not accept the same and treated the income as 'income fromother sources' on the ground that the documents concerning theproperty in question did not include any of the standing cropsor trees, which according to the assessee, were there viz.,coconut and mango trees. Aggrieved by the assessment orderdated 27.03.2006, the assessee preferred appeal to theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai (for brevity“the CIT(A)”). The CIT(A) being the first appellate authority,re-appreciated the facts and granted partial relief to theassessee and estimated the agricultural income at the rate ofRs.5,000/- per acre and computed the same at Rs.2,20,600/-.Therefore, the balance amount of Rs.5,17,762/- was confirmed.Aggrieved by such order, the assessee preferred appeal to theTribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the assessee's appeal.Questioning the correctness of the said order, the assessee isbefore us raising the above substantial questions of law. 5.Before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) and theTribunal, the assessee was unable to conclusively establish thatthere were standing trees, which according to the assessee weremore than 1200 mango trees and 1800 coconut trees. A letterissued by a third party was produced stating that he has taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) and theTribunal, the assessee was unable to conclusively establish thatthere were standing trees, which according to the assessee weremore than 1200 mango trees and 1800 coconut trees. A letterissued by a third party was produced stating that he has taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on lease the mango trees as well as the coconut trees. TheTribunal pointed out that these documents were never producedbefore the Assessing Officer. That apart, the Tribunal tooknote of the finding rendered by the CIT(A), who afterverification of the land documents, held that there was nomention of any standing trees in the said property. Thus, theTribunal concluded that there is no cogent evidence regardingthe agricultural income and expenditure incurred in agriculturaloperations have been provided and that mere possession of theland will not entitle the assessee to claim amounts asagricultural income. Thus, the stand taken by the assessee wasrejected as a self-serving statement. After making such anobservation, the Tribunal granted further relief over and abovethe relief granted by the CIT(A) by restricting the disallowanceto 50% and issuing direction to the Assessing Officer to treat50% of the amount Rs.7,38,362/- as agricultural income and treatthe rest as 'income from other sources'. Thus, we find thaton the basis of the documents, which were available, theassessee has been granted reasonable relief and in a tax caseappeal filed under Section 260A of the Act, we are required todecide the substantial question of law and we find none in thiscase. Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VI) //True Copy// abr Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle I(3), Chennai-600 034. 2.The Assistant Registrar, The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-I, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.45653+1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.45634 RSI(CO)RVM(07/10/2021) T.C.A.No.1414 of 2009