9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agricultural income which was brought within the tax net for the first time during the assessment year 1974-75 ? 2. Whether the Tribunal, in the context of the relevant provisions of law relied upon by the assessee to show that the agricultural income for the period from September 8, 1972 to September 7, 1973, was not includible in the total income of the assessee, erred in law in holding that the interpretation of the expressions 'in the previous year' and 'during the previous year' was not material ?" The assessee is a partner in various firms and is also having agricultural income. He was maintaining books of account for his agricultural income as well. Agricultural income is not subjected to income-tax. However, by the Finance Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered the agricultural income to be from a new business and allowed him to have the option of the previous year and obviously this was done by applying the provisions of section 3 ( 1 ) (d) (ii) of the Act. On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal erred in disturbing the decisions of the Income-tax Officer and of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The first mistake committed by the Tribunal was that it considered the inclusion of agricultural income for rate purposes with effect from April 1, 1973, as the setting up of a new business or profession by the assessee regarding agriculture which was not new endeavour. He was already having agricultural income and was maintaining his books of account for that inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... poses and this cannot be held as setting up of a new business or profession. If an assessee is already in a business and adds to his business, the provisions of section 3 (1) (d) of the Act would not be applicable to him and if he would like to have a change in the previous year, he will have to seek the permission of the Income-tax Officer under section 3(4) of the Act. Hence, the decision of the Tribunal was totally misconceived and based on erroneous facts. Accordingly, we answer the first question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the affirmative to the effect that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessee had a right to exercise his option for adoption of a particular previous year in respect of agric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
