2020 (11) TMI 979 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification u/s 254 - judgments of the jurisdictional High Court not considered - computation of agricultural income earned from leasehold agriculture land - HELD THAT - Admittedly the judgments of the jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Nandlal Sachdeva 2011 (2) TMI 1566 - ITAT INDORE was not brought to notice of this Tribunal. It is pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the assessee that there are two conflicting judgments of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. It is further pointed out that the judgment in the case of Nandlal Sachdeva (supra) is a later judgment. Considering the facts that the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High court was not brought to our notice at the time of passing of order which is subsequently brought to our notice therefore we recall our order in respect of the additional grounds taken by the assessee. Further the assessee has also pointed out that in earlier round of litigation the Tribunal had directed to compute agricultural income @ of Rs. 6, 000/- and also the income earned from leasehold agricultural lands was also not decided. Considering material available on records we deem it proper that both issues require the decision as have not been addressed in the orders sought to be rectified which is a mistake apparent from records

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of agricultural income from leasehold agricultural land.
2. Compliance with the directions given by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in the first round of appeal.
3. Legality and jurisdiction of additional grounds of appeal raised in the second round of litigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Computation of Agricultural Income from Leasehold Agricultural Land:
The assessee contended that the computation of agricultural income from leasehold land was not correctly followed as per the directions of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in the first round of appellate proceedings. The Tribunal had previously directed that agricultural income be computed at Rs. 6000 per acre, but the authorities below computed it at Rs. 6000 per bigha, which was not disputed by the department. The authorities also failed to consider the additional evidence provided by the assessee regarding the leasehold land and the agricultural activities conducted thereon.

2. Compliance with Directions Given by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench:
The assessee argued that the authorities did not comply with the specific directions given by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in the first round of appeal. These directions included considering additional evidence, determining the total land taken on lease, allowing deductions on lease rentals, and computing the agricultural income from leasehold lands. The authorities below took an adverse view based on the absence of the assessee's name in the Khasra records and the nature of the lease agreements, which were on plain paper without stamps. The assessee contended that these findings were factually incorrect and that the lease agreements were indeed on stamp paper for the respective years.

3. Legality and Jurisdiction of Additional Grounds of Appeal:
The assessee raised additional grounds challenging the legality and jurisdiction of the assessment, arguing that the additions were made without reference to any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal had rejected these additional grounds, stating that they were raised at a belated stage. The assessee cited the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Nandlal Sachdeva, which allowed the raising of legal issues at any stage if all relevant facts were on record. The Tribunal acknowledged that the judgment in Nandlal Sachdeva was not brought to its notice earlier and decided to recall its order in respect of the additional grounds taken by the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nandlal Sachdeva was not considered at the time of passing the order. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled its order dated 30.04.2019 to the extent of deciding the aforementioned issues, directing the registry to fix the appeals for hearing on 18.01.2021. The Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee were allowed.