The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INGOME TAX The Court delivered the following Judgment : ,_- rr.r+*.,-161E-.. ,? TIII] TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAIVI KOSIIY AND TIIE HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICII NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOMIi TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.206 OF 20t0 JUDGMENT (pcr llttn blr Sri Jrtstitc l'.Sum Kosht,) IJeard Mr. Maheesh Mahinvith, leamed counsel tbl thc appellant and Ms. B. Sapna Redcly, lealned Senior Standing Counstrl lilr Income Tax I)epaftment, appearing 1br the resporrdcnt.

2. Thc instant appeal undcr Section 260A olthe Incorne Trtx Act, 1961, has been prclerred the appcllant against the order datcd 30.09.201)!t passed by the Income Tax Appellatc 'lribunal, Hyderabad "B" Ben:lr. Ilyderabad, It1 I.T.A.No.745lHydl2009 lbr the Assessment Year 2004-05

3. It is the case u,lrere tlie learnccl Tribunal has set asidc thr: order passed by the CIT(A), dated 1i.03.2009, which stood in lavour of th: asscssee directing the Assessing Officer to accept the agricultural incorne decl,rrcd by the assessce to the extent of Rs.7 lakhs and had partly allowed the clain o ' the appellant so far as the agricuitural income shorvn in thc course filing o1' the appeal concerned

4. The facts of the case in briel' is that the Assessing Ollicer, at the first instance, haC refused to add an amount of Rs. I 4,20,500/ ,'lrelting it as the agricultural income and rather assessed it to be the income from other sources. The order of the Assessing Officer dated,29.12.2006 was subjected to challenge before the CIT(A) and CIT(A), vide its order dated 13.03.2009 had allowed the appeal ol the assessee and had granted the benefit of treating the entire amount of Rs. 14,20,500/- as agricultural incomc. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal, where the matter was registered as I.T.A.No.745lHyd/2009. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 30.09.2009 has parlly allowed the appeal of thc asscssee to the extent of tleating half of the amount claimed by the assessee towards the agricultural income and the remaining half was ordered to be treated as income fiom other soutces. It is this order which is under chal[enge by the assessee insofar as not granting the benefit to the entire amounf of Rs. 14,20,500/- to be treated as agricultural lncome

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there was no strong material available for thc Tribunal to have interfered with the order of thc CIT(A), as the order of the CIT(A) was bascd upon the fresh inspectiorl report submitted by the Ward Inspector who had subsequently again visited the agricultural fields ofthe assessee and had given a report ofbeing satisfied of the nature ofagriculture and the operations being carried out by the appellant. ,/ 6, However, upon perusal ol'the records, we find that the ,\s:iessing Officer, PaBe 3 of 4 at the first instance, had himself pelsonally visited the agrictltural field of the assessee and found that for the entile patch ol lands, there rvete only a srnall three year otd fiuit bearing trees which are not yet started y ielding fruits and therefore, the Assessing Offlcer found that the agricultural inr:orne to be highly disproportionate, more particularly, fbr the reason that this altricultural income for the Assessment Year 2004-05 was more than -500 times than rvhat it was hve years back. Further, this Bench also finds that even altcr th: remand and the Ward lnspector, who was also sent to ttre field and has given atmost the satne nature of report except for the age of the plants those are 1r-urt bearing trees which again has rightly been disbelieved by the Tribunal as rvith that age and with that size of the plants, the amount of fruits that could be collected also \ould not be to the magnitude of what has been claimed by the assessee.

7. The Tribunal, on the other hand, having taken a pragrlatic view, has taken into account the amount of the agricultural income, clairned by the assessee, which was accepted by the Assessing Officers in thr: previous five years and has given the similar benefit to the appellant assesjee also i.e., from the amount of Rs.14,20,500 declared by the appellant to bc the agricultural income. The Tribunal has given the benefit of Rs.7 lakhs to vards agricultural Page 4 of4 income, taking into account the income which was generated from the same area ofland in thc previous couple of years

8. On plain perusal of the findings given in paragraph No.S of the order of the Tribunal, we flnd that there is sufficient explanation given by the Tribunal in partly allowing the appeal of the appellant and partly disallowing the claim in toto, as claimed by the assessee. The said hnding being entirely the finding of fact and with plausible justification, we do not find any strong case made out by the appellant calling for interference to the impugned order of the Tribunal.

9. The instant appeal fails and is accordingly disinissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/.K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUWREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ko,o.r* SE To,

1. The lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad B Bench, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRl. Maheesh Mahinvith' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Ms. B. Sapna Reddy, Senior Standing Counsel for lT' Department, [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies kulikam (\' HIGH COURT DATED:09/07/2025 JUDGMENT ITTA.No.206 of 2010 ( Fi lA /4: (_), i:i 03 SEP206 \\. i: \:. i1-(' :.- t\ / DISMISSING THE ITTA WITHOUT COSTS G-tq"L S6.