Anand Flori Farms India P. Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer

The assessee had filed Income Tax returns for the years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99. In all these years it declared its income as "agricultural income" and, therefore, claimed exemption from payment of Income Tax. The Assessing Officer passed separate assessment orders from time to time in respect of all these assessment years. He arrived at a finding that the income shown was not "agricultural income" and treated the same as "income from other sources". Accordingly, tax was levied and even penalty proceedings initiated against the appellant for making wrongful disclosures in the Income Tax returns. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reversed the assessment orders. In all these cases the Department preferred appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The appeal relating to the assessment year 1995-96 came up for hearing and was heard ex parte as nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restored that of the Assessing Officer. On coming to know of the passing of this order, the assessee moved an application for setting aside of that order on the plea that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not appearing on the date when the matter was heard. This application of the assessee was rejected. Against that order a writ petition was filed before this Court. The order dated November 17, 2009, set aside the order of the Tribunal in the said miscellaneous application and directed the Tribunal to consider the application afresh.

The Tribunal, thereafter, bestowed its fresh consideration on the said application and, vide orders dated December 7, 2009, has allowed the application. The consequence thereof is that ex parte orders passed in the appeal of the Revenue in respect of the assessment year 1995-96, vide order dated March 29, 2004, appeals relating to other assessment years (subject matter of present appeals) came up for hearing. In so far as the present appeals are concerned, these are filed against common judgment dated November 11, 2005, whereby those appeals of the Revenue have been allowed and order of the Assessing Officer restored.

In paragraph 4 of the appeal the Tribunal took note of the Income Tax appeal decided on March 29, 2004, relating to the assessment year 1995-96, whereby the said appeal of the Revenue was allowed. However, thereafter the Tribunal even considered the facts of this case and on that basis allowed the appeals after arriving at a finding that there was no agricultural income of the assessee in these assessment years.

The appellant argues that the appellant had no occasion to make effective submissions opposing the appeals filed by the Department inasmuch as counsel for the assessee was not available on that date. The hearing was attended by Mr. R.P. Anand, managing director and as the Tribunal was not adjourning the matter, he contested the appeal to the best of his ability but could not present the case properly as he has no expertise in taxation laws. The appellants have filed applications in these/appeals categorically stating this fact and one of the grounds taken in these appeals is that the assessee be given proper opportunity to make its submissions before the Tribunal.

Persuaded by the aforesaid fact and also the fact that appeal in respect of the assessment year 1995-96 has to be heard afresh, we are of the opinion that it would sub-serve the interests of justice if all these appeals are heard along with the appeals of 1995-96, since the question involved in all these appeals is identical. For this reason alone we set aside the decision dated November 11, 2005, given by the Tribunal in these appeals. We may clarify that we have not at all gone into the findings recorded by the Tribunal and have not made any comments there against. It would be for the Tribunal to go into these aspects which are taken note of in the order dated November 11, 2005. Of course, at the same time the submissions which would be made by the appellant at the time of arguments shall be duly taken note of and considered while deciding the matters afresh.

With the above observations these appeals are disposed of.