2009 (4) TMI 222

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l by the Revenue, prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular F. No. 279/126/98-IT dated March 27 2000., appeal file by department is dismissed - It is not the case of the Revenue that the issue involved in these appeals before the Tribunal fall within any one of the exceptions provided in the circular - circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is much binding on the Revenue and that requires no support of judicial precedent.- so appeals are dismissed
K. RAVIRAJA FANDIAN and M. M. SUNDRESH JJ. J. Naresh kumar for the appellant. V. S. Jayakumar for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN J.-These appeals are at the instance of the Revenue filed against the or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, relying on the earlier decisions, allowed the appeals of the assessees. Hence, these appeals are at the instance of the Revenue. 3. These appeals were admitted on August 4, 2008, on the following substantial question of law : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the receipts from the sale of old silver oak trees which were shade trees in the assessee's coffee estate and which have outlived their normal life and which were posing a threat to the existing coffee plants, as agricultural income and not assessable under the head 'Capital gains'?" 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the order of the T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tions stated in the circular are applicable to the facts of the present case. The circular was stated to be issued by invoking the statutory power under section 119 of the Income-tax Act. The appeal is filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. It is well-settled principle of law that each and every provision of a statute has to be given the same importance. One provision cannot be elevated to a higher pedestal than the other provision, of course, unless or otherwise specifically stated either in the scheme, the Act or in the provision itself that a particular provision is subjected to or qualified by any other provision or the provision can be given effect to notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions by assigning over .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X