Assessee challenged the Tribunal's order treating only half of Rs.14,20,500 as agricultural income for AY 2004-05. The High Court found the Tribunal's split treatment was a plausible finding of fact based on field inspection reports and prior years' accepted income, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAMKOSHY AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSINGRAO NANDIKONDA
INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEALNO: 206 OF 2010
lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal underSection 260-4 of the lncome Tax Act 196'1 against order dated 30-09-2009in lTA.No. 745 lHydl2009,on the file of lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad BBench Hyderabad,for the assessment year 2004-05.
Between:
Smt. C. Girija Devi, D.No. 5-8-93,Nampally StationRoad' Hyderabad.
.,.APPELLANT
AND
lncome Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1 )Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. MAHEESHMAHINVITH
Counsel for the Respondent: Ms.B. SAPNA REDDY SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR INGOMETAX
The Court delivered the followingJudgment:
,_- rr.r+*.,-161E-..
,?
TIII] TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAIVI KOSIIY AND TIIE HON'BI,E SRI JUSTICII NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA INCOMIi TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL No.206 OF 20t0
JUDGMENT (pcr llttn blr Sri Jrtstitc l'.Sum Kosht,)
IJeard Mr. Maheesh Mahinvith, leamed counsel tbl thc appellant and Ms. B. Sapna Redcly, lealned Senior Standing Counstrl lilr Income Tax I)epaftment, appearing 1br the resporrdcnt.
Page 2 of 4
agricultural income and rather assessed it to be the income from other sources. The order of the Assessing Officer dated,29.12.2006 was subjected to challenge before the CIT(A) and CIT(A), vide its order dated 13.03.2009 had allowed the appeal ol the assessee and had granted the benefit of treating the entire amount of Rs. 14,20,500/- as agricultural incomc. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal, where the matter was registered as I.T.A.No.745lHyd/2009. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 30.09.2009 has parlly allowed the appeal of thc asscssee to the extent of tleating half of the amount claimed by the assessee towards the agricultural income and the remaining half was ordered to be treated as income fiom other soutces. It is this order which is under chal[enge by the assessee insofar as not granting the benefit to the entire amounf of Rs. 14,20,500/- to be treated as agricultural lncome
PaBe 3 of 4
,/ 6, However, upon perusal ol'the records, we find that the ,\s:iessingOfficer, at the first instance, had himself pelsonally visited the agrictlturalfield of the assessee and found that for the entilepatch ollands, there rvete only a srnall three year otd fiuit bearing trees which arenot yet startedy ielding fruits and therefore, the Assessing Offlcer found that the agriculturalinr:orneto be highly disproportionate, moreparticularly, fbr thereason that this altriculturalincome for the Assessment Year 2004-05 was more than -500 timesthan rvhat it was hve years back. Further, this Bench also finds that even altcr th: remand and the Ward lnspector, who was also sent to ttre field and hasgiven atmost the satne nature of report except for the age of the plants those are1r-urt bearing trees which again has rightly been disbelieved by the Tribunal asrvith that age and with that size of the plants, the amount of fruits that could be collected also \ould not be to the magnitude of what has been claimed by the assessee.
Page 4 of4
income, taking into account the income which was generated from the same area ofland in thc previous couple of years
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/.K. SREE RAMAMURTHY DEPUWREGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SE ko,o.r*
kulikam ('
HIGH COURT
DATED:09/07/2025
JUDGMENT
ITTA.No.206 of 2010
(on Fi lA /4: (_),
i1-('
t<br>i:i 03 SEP206 :.-
\. i:
/
:.
DISMISSING THE ITTA WITHOUT COSTS
G-tq"L
S6.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in treating only Rs.7 lakhs of the declared Rs.14,20,500 as agricultural income and the balance as income from other sources.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. C. Girija Devi
Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(1), Hyderabad
P.Sam Koshy
Narsing Rao Nandikonda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
