2009 (7) TMI 613 - HC - Income Tax

Exemption- The assessee claimed agricultural income from sale of safeda trees by producing documentary evidence thereof which was disbelieved by the Assessing officer. The view of the Assessing officer was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. Held- dismissing the appeal that the concurrent finding of the authorities below were not perverse so as to call for interfere.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2000-01.
2. Whether the Tribunal's order is based on surmises and conjectures.
3. Justification of the Tribunal's decision in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order regarding the sale of safeda trees and agriculture income.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order for the assessment year 2000-01. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the appreciation of evidence related to the sale of safeda trees and agriculture income. The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds of not considering the evidence presented by the appellant and the cultivation of safeda trees on the appellant's land. The appellant's arguments were supported by the production of photographs of safeda trees and witness testimonies. However, the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal did not find the evidence credible, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2. The Tribunal's order was questioned on the basis of being speculative and not supported by concrete evidence. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision was based on surmises and conjectures, challenging the sustainability of the order. However, the Tribunal upheld its decision, citing detailed reasons provided in the judgment. Despite the appellant's contentions, the Tribunal's findings were deemed reasonable and not arbitrary, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order regarding the sale of safeda trees and agriculture income was further analyzed. The appellant claimed agriculture income from the sale of safeda trees and presented documentary evidence to support the claim. However, the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient and not genuine. The Tribunal, after reviewing the orders of the lower authorities, concluded that the concurrent findings were not perverse and did not warrant interference. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.