9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred the following three questions of law for decision by this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and after having found that 'there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the cash balance of Rs. 80,000 as agricultural income even for rate purposes' the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that there is nothing wrong in accepting the cash balance shown by the assessee? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and considering the human conduct and human nature being what it is, if the amount added according to the assessee is agricultural income will not the assessee be over enthusiastic in showing the same in the return for rate purposes and should not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unexplained income. The contention of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that the said sum of Rs. 80,000 represents his savings and agricultural income. However, the assessee has later taken the stand that the sum of Rs. 80,000 represented the agricultural income alone. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) did not accept the said contention in toto. He granted relief to the extent of Rs. 20,000 which according to him would have been agricultural income from approximately an extent of 4 acres and 81 cents. of agricultural property owned by the assessee. In further appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal accepted the explanation offered by the assessee in respect of the balance Rs. 60,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion can be filed by the Department where the pecuniary limit was below Rs. 50,000. Counsel submits that in the instant case, as per the order of the Assessing Officer giving effect to the first appellate authority's order, the tax liability is only Rs. 46,079. Counsel on the merits of the case submitted that the Tribunal had found as a fact that the assessee had agricultural income from 4 acres and 81 cents of land owned by him and that in the absence of a challenge to the said finding of fact as perverse, this court in reference will not interfere with the findings of fact entered by the Tribunal. Counsel in support of the said proposition has relied on the three judges' Bench decision of the Supreme Court in K. Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority had accepted the explanation to the extent of Rs. 20,000 which has not been questioned by the Department. The Tribunal has simply extended the same to the entire amount of Rs. 80,000 on the ground that the assessee had 4.81 acres of agricultural income, that the guidelines issued by the Board of Revenue provides for the yield from such rubber estate and that going by the guidelines contained in the circular, the assessee's explanation that he had agricultural income to the tune of Rs. 80,000 is justified. True, the assessee had not placed any material other than the extent of land owned by him. The fact that the assessee had in fact planted the said land with rubber trees and that it was yielding during the previous years and the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
