Madras High Court
Smt.C.Padma @ R.Padma Udayar vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 8 September, 2021
T.C.A.No.1414 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.09.2021
CORAM
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
T.C.A.No.1414 of 2009
Smt.C.Padma @ R.Padma Udayar,
No.20, 5th 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. .. Respondent
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 21.08.2009 passed in I.T.A.No.728/Mds/2007 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai for the assessment year
2003-04.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Thiagarajan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent : Ms.K.G.Usha Rani,
Standing Counsel
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.1414 of 2009
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)
This appeal, by the appellant/assessee, filed under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity “the Act”), is directed against the
order dated 21.08.2009 made in I.T.A.No.728/Mds/2007 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai (for brevity “the
Tribunal”) for the assessment year 2003-04.
2.The appeal was admitted on 22.12.2009, on the following
substantial questions of law:-
“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was correct in shifting the burden of
proof on the appellant is correct in law when the
appellant proved the claim with contemporaneous
documents?
2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in reducing the
disallowance by 50% even after holding that the
appellant was owing and in enjoyment of 44.12. acres
on agricultural land is correct in law? and
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.1414 of 2009
3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case the Tribunal was right in recording finding that the
certificate issued by H.Akthar Basha was treated as
fictitious and not as fact is correct in law?”
3.Heard Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and
Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent/Revenue.
4.The assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for the
assessment year 2003-04 reporting total income of Rs.8,34,150/- of which,
the assessee claimed a sum of Rs.7,38,362/- to be agricultural income. The
Assessing Officer did not accept the same and treated the income as 'income
from other sources' on the ground that the documents concerning the
property in question did not include any of the standing crops or trees,
which according to the assessee, were there viz., coconut and mango trees.
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27.03.2006, the assessee preferred
appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai (for
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.1414 of 2009
brevity “the CIT(A)”). The CIT(A) being the first appellate authority,
re-appreciated the facts and granted partial relief to the assessee and
estimated the agricultural income at the rate of Rs.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 the Tribunal. The Tribunal has dismissed the assessee's
appeal. Questioning the correctness of the said order, the assessee is before
us raising the above substantial questions of law.
5.Before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) and the
Tribunal, the assessee was unable to conclusively establish that there were
standing trees, which according to the assessee were more than 1200 mango
trees and 1800 coconut trees. A letter issued by a third party was produced
stating that he has taken on lease the mango trees as well as the coconut
trees. The Tribunal pointed out that these documents were never produced
before the Assessing Officer. That apart, the Tribunal took note of the
finding rendered by the CIT(A), who after verification of the land
documents, held that there was no mention of any standing trees in the said
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.1414 of 2009
property. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that there is no cogent evidence
regarding the agricultural income and expenditure incurred in agricultural
operations have been provided and that mere possession of the land will not
entitle the assessee to claim amounts as agricultural income. Thus, the stand
taken by the assessee was rejected as a self-serving statement. After making
such an observation, the Tribunal granted further relief over and above the
relief granted by the CIT(A) by restricting the disallowance to 50% and
issuing direction to the Assessing Officer to treat 50% of the amount
Rs.7,38,362/- as agricultural income and treat the rest as 'income from other
sources'. Thus, we find that on the basis of the documents, which were
available, the assessee has been granted reasonable relief and in a tax case
appeal filed under Section 260A of the Act, we are required to decide the
substantial question of law and we find none in this case. Therefore, the
appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
08.09.2021
abr
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.1414 of 2009
T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
and
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.
(abr)
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle I(3), Chennai-600 034.
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'A', Chennai.
T.C.A.No.1414 of 2009
08.09.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
