High Court Of Madras
CIT vs. Kulandai Theresa
Section 158BB
K. Raviraja Pandian & M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Tax Case (Appeal) No. 35 of 2009
15th April, 2009
Counsel Appeared :
Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, for the Appellant Judgment
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. :
The Revenue is on appeal against the order of the Tribunal, Madras ‘D’ Bench, Chennai, dt. 30th June, 2008 passed in IT(SS)A No. 71/Mad/2004.
2. The facts as culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are as follows :
A search took place in the residential and business premises of late Shri C. Sudalaimani Nadar, Eral on 7th July, 1999 under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961, which revealed various investments, expenditure, movable and immovable assets. The AO initiated proceedings under s. 158BC and after examining the books of account and other information gathered during search, determined the undisclosed income at Rs. 30,50,630. On appeal, the CIT(A) estimated the agricultural income and non-agricultural income and deleted the addition to that extent for the reason that the assessee had not disclosed his agricultural income as well as non-agricultural income to the full extent in the regular return of income filed and on that basis the undisclosed income was determined at Rs. 9,15,490. Both the Revenue as well as the assessee filed appeal and cross-appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee had suppressed not only his non- agricultural income, but also his agricultural income. Therefore, when the undisclosed part of the non- agricultural income is worked out, it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to give credit for the undisclosed part of the agricultural income and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The same is now put in issue by formulating the following question of law :
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the CIT (A)’s order when the CIT(A) has failed to estimate the agricultural income of the assessee considering the extent of lands and the agricultural income admitted by the assessee in his regular return of income ?”
We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the materials available on record. There is no doubt that the agricultural income is an exempted income for the purpose of income-tax. The CIT(A) has reasonably established on examination of the materials available before him that the assessee had suppressed not only his non-agricultural income but also his agricultural income. Therefore, when the undisclosed part of the non-agricultural income is worked out, it is lawfully incumbent upon the officer concerned to give credit for the undisclosed part of the agricultural income. That is what exactly done in this case. We find no merit in this appeal so as to entertain the same. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
[Citation : 329 ITR 275]
