TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E to order passed by Hon ble High Court. Entire confusion arose only because of the appeal filed by assessee, before Ld.CIT(A), against OGE passed by Ld.AO to order passed by Hon ble High Court. In our opinion, assessee suffered for its own fault. Assessee in appeal filed before us against the impugned order, has not restricted its issue that arises out of the impugned order. We record our strong dismay to such recourse taken by assessee. In our view, Ld.CIT(A) and assessee erred by initiating protracted litigation which is not in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Act. We do not find any infirmity in taxable income computed by Ld.AO in OGE to Hon ble High Court on 21/03/2012. We also hold that enhancement by Ld.CIT(A) is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this matter was not in dispute. Therefore, the action of CIT(A) in taking the entire agricultural income including which was allowed by the Assessing Officer (and which was not in dispute) on business income is bad in law and on fact. 4. Without prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer had erred in assessing the income at ₹ 4.08,02,789/- by allowing deduction in respect of respect of agricultural income of only ₹ 3.43,11,842/-. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the computation of income is erroneous. The correct computation is to be adopted. 5. Without prejudice, the authorities below have erred in not appreciating the fact that business income of the appellant is eligible for deduction U/s. 8011B of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16,21,841/-. Relevant order placed at page 21-36 of appeal memo 2. Against order passed by Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and disputed the disallowance made by Ld.AO in respect of alleged agricultural income of ₹ 3,84,13,288/-. Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim of assessee. Relevant order is placed at page 92-96 of paper book filed on 10/07/2019. 3. Revenue preferred appeal before this Tribunal against the order of Ld.CIT(A). This Tribunal while considering the claim of assessee, observed that 10% of the said income is only attributable to the business of assessee and the balance 90% amounts to agricultural income. This Tribunal thus restricted the disallowance to 10% of ₹ 3,84,13,288/- in its order dated 14/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was agricultural produce and income therefrom is agricultural income, was right in law in holding the process of certification of hybrid seeds produced by the appellant to make it marketable could not be held to be a process ordinarily employed by the cultivator and to that extent the income derived could not be treated as agricultural income as defined under section 2 (1A) of the act? 7. Hon ble High Court while considering the 1st question in revenue s appeal and the question admitted in assessee s appeal opined that, entire amount earned by assessee is to be treated as business income and assessing officer was justified in treating the said sum as income under the head business income. Categorical observation by Hon ble High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rried on in contract land. He placed reliance on computation by Ld.AO in original assessment order, grounds raised before Ld.CIT(A) and before this Tribunal in support of this contention in first round of appeal. 8. Succinctly, Ld.AR admitted that, OGE passed by Ld.AO of order passed by Hon ble High Court was correct, and that to keep the issue alive, assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) against the OGE. 9. On the contrary, Ld.Sr.DR placed reliance on order passed by Ld.CIT(A). 10. We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 11. We agree with Ld.AR that, only issue raised by revenue before Hon ble High Court was in respect of 90% deduction granted by this Tribunal as agricultura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) against Ld.AO s OGE to order passed by Hon ble High Court. Entire confusion arose only because of the appeal filed by assessee, before Ld.CIT(A), against OGE passed by Ld.AO to order passed by Hon ble High Court. In our opinion, assessee suffered for its own fault. 15. Further, assessee in appeal filed before us against the impugned order, has not restricted its issue that arises out of the impugned order. We record our strong dismay to such recourse taken by assessee. In our view, Ld.CIT(A) and assessee erred by initiating protracted litigation which is not in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Act. 16. With above observation, we do not find any infirmity in taxable income computed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
