9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee-appellants. However, the learned counsel for the assessee has filed two applications both dated 21.8.2011 in ITA No.617/Hyd/2011 for assessment year 2007-08 of Smt. Madhavi; and ITA Nos.627 to 629/Hyd/2011 for assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 of Shri Venkateswara Rao, requesting for adjournment of the appeals on the ground that some of the appeals of these very assessees, for the assessment year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 2005-06 and 2008-09 in the case of Smt.Madhavi and for assessment year 2002-03 to 2004-05 in the case of Shri Venkateswara Rao, were also pending before the Tribunal, and that they also may be consolidated and posted for hearing. We find that the appeals of the two a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture incurred by them for agricultural operations carried out. He submitted that he assessees could not file any documentary evidence relating to sale of agricultural produce. He submitted that the assessees have admitted that the income from agricultural lands was based on estimation only and no details thereof were mentioned by the assessees. He submitted that in these facts, the assessing officer was justified in holding that the assessees could not prove that they have agricultural income during the relevant years and consequently, the assessing the same under the head income from other sources. 4. We have considered the submissions of the Learned Departmental Representative and have perused the orders of the assessing officer and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00,000 for assessment year 2003-04; of ₹ 1,30,000 for assessment year 2004-05; of ₹ 1,30,000 for assessment year 2005-06; of ₹ 1,45,000 for assessment year 2006-07; of ₹ 1,50,000 for assessment year 2007-08; and of ₹ 2.25,000 for assessment year 2008-09 could not be said to be abnormal or excessive. Similarly, even in respect of the the assessee, Shri Venkateswara Rao, incomes form agricultural operations declared of ₹ 1,35,000 for assessment year 2002-03; of ₹ 1,50,000 each for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 could not be said to be abnormal or excessive. In case the Revenue authorities have any doubt regarding the actual agricultural operations undertaken by the assessees or on behalf of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng reasonable, in view of the extent of land holdings owned by them, we hold that no case for treating the agricultural incomes declared as income from other sources could be made out by the Revenue and accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessees. Consequently, the additions impugned in these appeals, made by the assessing officer and sustained by the CIT(A), are deleted. 5. The second common issue involved in all these appeals relates to charging of interest under S.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The ground taken by the assessee, Smt. Madhavi, on that issue in appeal ITA No.618/Hyd/2011 for assessment year 2002-03, reads as follows- The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) ought to have directed the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
