ACIT Vs Enbee Plantation Ltd (ITAT Indore)
ITAT Indore held that addition unsustainable as genuineness of the agricultural operations of the assesse and sales made by the assesse duly accepted.
Facts- Notice was issued to the official liquidator for representing the assesse in the present proceedings. This is second round of litigation as the dispute in the present appeal of the revenue was also carried to this Tribunal by the assessee. This issue was set aside by the Tribunal to the record of the AO to reconsider the same in the light of the directions and observations of the Tribunal. AO repeated the addition while passing the assessment order in pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal. On further appeal, CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO while passing the impugned order.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order of CIT(A), revenue has filed the present appeal.
Conclusion- It is clear that the AO has not complied with the directions of the Tribunal while passing the impugned order and just repeated the addition on the ground that the assesse has not produced any new facts or explanation with supporting evidence. It is pertinent to note that when the assesse has already produced the record at the time of original assessment and Tribunal has already given a finding so far as the genuine agricultural activity and produce of the assesse as well as sales made to M/s Tirupathi Agency then what was to be examined in the set aside proceedings by the AO to segregate the details of the sales made to M/s Tirupathi Agency and other parties if any. Instead of doing any verification in compliance of the direction of the Tribunal, the AO has made straight away the addition as it was made in the original assessment order.
Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has considered the fact that all the details were produced by the assessee in the preceding assessment year regarding the genuineness of the agricultural activities and sale of agricultural produce by the assesse which were examined and found to be genuine by the Tribunal and consequently to the extent of the issue which is common for the year under consideration with the assessment year 1997-98. The Tribunal has accepted the genuineness of the agricultural operations of the assesse and sales made by the assesse. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) qua this issue.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT INDORE
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 29.01.2013 of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), for Assessment Year 1998-99. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,89.76.161/- made by the AO on account of Income from other source as per section 56 of the IT. Act, 1961.”
2. Notice was issued to the official liquidator for representing the assesse in the present proceedings, however official liquidator chose to not appear before the Tribunal despite the notices and send reply dated 2nd May 2023. Accordingly the Bench proposes to hear and disposed of this appeal filed by the revenue ex-parte. The assesse has gone into liquidation and the official liquidator has been appointed as per the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Company Petition No.03/2003.
3. This is second round of litigation as the dispute in the present appeal of the revenue was also carried to this Tribunal by the assesse in ITANo.385/Ind/2005 and Cross appeal by the Revenue in ITANo.480/Ind/2005. This issue was set aside by the Tribunal to the record of the AO to reconsider the same in the light of the directions and observations of the Tribunal. The AO repeated the addition while passing the assessment order in pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal dated 28.02.2011. On further appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO while passing the impugned order. Aggrieved by the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) the revenue has filed the present appeal.
4. DR has submitted that the assesse has not filed any evidence for verification and examination of the AO and therefore, the AO has made addition in respect of the sales of agricultural produce claimed by the assessee. He has referred to the assessment order and submitted that in absence of any supporting evidence the AO has reiterated the addition as made in the original assessment order.
5. We have considered the submission of the Ld. DR and carefully perused the impugned order of the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A). At the outset, we note that in the earlier round of litigation this tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2011 has considered this issue as under:
“15. We have considered the rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below as well as the order of the Tribunal quoted hereinabove. With regard to the agricultural income of the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment year which has been accepted by the Tribunal after giving detailed finding with regard to the agricultural produce and its sales, we find that the Tribunal has also considered the fact of the assessee having been engaged in agricultural produce and also selling the same to various parties including M/s Tirupathi Agency. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects and the objections noted by the Assessing Officer and thereafter reached to the conclusion that the assessee company has genuinely sold its agricultural produce to M/s Tirupathi Agency. The Tribunal has also observed that the sales of the assessee were also examined by the Assessing Officer by issuing summons u/s 131 of the Act and all the purchasers have confirmed the fact of purchase of goods. It was also observed that the assessee had purchased sufficient agricultural land which was having sufficient availability of water and further boring was done to simply meet out the future demand. All these findings have been given with respect to the assessment year 1997-98. Present assessment year under consideration is 1998-99. We find that similar observation was made by the Assessing Officer in A.Y. 1997-98 which has been met by the assessee and the same has been reproduced by the Tribunal at pages 38 to 40 of its order which reads as under:
