TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 561
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in allowing depreciation. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.1: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata has erred in law in allowing depreciations of Rs.6,43,245/- without considering the fact that assessee has failed to furnish the required evidence in support of the depreciation claimed before the A.O." 4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The brief facts leading to the above issue are that the AO noted that the assessee claimed to have installed the following machineries and claimed depreciation at Rs.6,43,245/-: "Name of the Tea Garden Value of Plant & Machinery Installed allegedly on 31.03.2005. Mechpara Tea Garden Rs.30,53,825/- Zurantee Tea Garden Rs. 5,74,222/- Karata Valley Tea Garden Rs.15,17,867/-Rs.51,45,964/- Depreciation @ 50% of 25% of Rs.51,45,964/- = Rs.6,43,245/-" The AO noted that no evidence to substantiate the claim that these machineries were put to use as on 31.03.2005, he disallowed the depreciation. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) who allowed the claim of assessee vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowed for statistical purposes. 6. The next issue in this appeal of revenue is against order of CIT(A) deleting the addition on account of cess on green leaf. For this, revenue has raised following ground No.2: "2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.37,96,014/- on account of cess on green leaf without considering the fact that expenses on account of cess on green leaf is related to 100% agricultural operation and SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of AFT Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (270 ITR 167) in the light of which Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee." 7. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of AFT Industries Ltd. (supra), wherein Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "Having regard to the provisions contained in rule 8 with which we had occasion to deal in Union of India v. Warren Tea Ltd. [2004) 266 ITR 226 (Cal)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s ground of appeal. 8. The next issue in this appeal of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) in restricting the income at Rs.4,58,302/- instead of the income assessed by AO at Rs.10,91,762/- on account of profit from purchase of green leaf. For this, revenue has raised following ground no.3:- "3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata has erred in law in restricting the income to the extent of Rs.4,58,302/- in place of Rs.10,91,762/- considered as 100% taxable business income since the Ld. CIT(A) calculated the profit from purchased green leaf after allowing depreciation and cess on green leaf which are appealable." 9. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the AO noted from the bank account that the assessee has purchased green leaf amounting to Rs.3,23,56,488/- as per schedule-16 of Note on Accounts of green leaf purchased. As per this account, the green leaf purchased from assessee's own gardens is at 1,17,60,072 Kgs and purchased from outside at 34,91,657 kgs. According to AO, percentage of purchased leaf is 23% and income from tea business attributable to 23% of green leaf purchased....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a plants without considering sale of tea plant is not agricultural income and not to be included in the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. For this, revenue has raised following two grounds i.e. ground nos. 4 and 5: "4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A, Kolkata has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- being sale of tea plants without considering the fact that sale of tea plant is not agricultural income and does not come under declared objective of the assessee company. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A), Kolkata has erred in law in allowing deduction of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.30,12,347/- being agricultural income from Book Profit u/s. 115JB without appreciating the fact that the book profit does not indicate the total taxable income of the assessee." 12. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the AO while computing total income of assessee added a sum of Rs.2,90,781/- under the head income from other sources which includes an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of sale of tea plants, which, according to AO is not agricultural income. In appeal before ....