TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 961
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting to Rs. 32,23,29,904/- by ignoring the fact that the assessee had made wrong claim for deduction under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Both the appeals are having identical issues, therefore, we are taking up ITA No. 3083/DEL/2017 (A.Y. 2008-09). The assessee was in the business of producing/manufacturing of hybrid seeds and claimed its income as agricultural income thereby claiming exemption u/s 10(1) of the Act. The assessment in the case was made u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.12.2011 on total income of Rs. 71,85,27,502/- as against returned income of Rs. 3,26,77,260/- thereby rejecting the claim of exemption u/s 10(1) and treated the same as business income. This was subsequently revised in an order u/s 154/143(3) dated 19.11.2012 at Rs. 67,31,69,480/-. The assessee company filed an appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer with CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 26.03.2013 confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer following the order of his predecessor in the earlier assessment years. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 27.03.2015 levying penalty @ 100% of the Taxes on amount of incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 271(1)(c) of the Act not specifying exact charge for which penalty was proposed to be levied on an assessee was invalid and bad in law, since the assessee was not afforded an opportunity of defending itself qua the specific charge: - Glory Lifesciences, Delhi ITAT - Pg 88 of PB 5 -Para 8 of the order 4 ITA Nos. 3083 & 3084/Del/2017 - Mohd Farhan A. Shaikh, Bombay HC-Larger Bench - Pg. 53-54 & 84 Of PB 5. - FCI ASIA PTE LTD. Delhi ITAT - Pg 14 to 19 of PB 4 - SRIKANT SHAH - Delhi ITAT- Pg 10 to 13 of PB 4 - Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory: 359 ITR 565 (Kar) - SSA Emerald Meadows: 73 taxmann.com 241 (Kar) [Revenue's SLP dismissed in 242 Taxman 180] - New Sorathia Engg Co vs CIT: 282 ITR 642 (Guj) - PCIT vs Smt. Baisetty Revathi: ITTA. No.684 of 2016 (AP & Telangana) - CIT vs Shri Samson Perinchery: ITA No.1154 of 2014 dated 05.01.2017 (Bombay HC) Copy of Notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271 are attached at Pg 20 of PB 4 III. Taxability of Income from Sale of Hybrid Seeds has been Contentious and Arguable 5. Assessment History - Ag. Exemption claim was duly a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se should not be followed 13. In para 9 of the Order (Pg 50 PB2), ITAT states that Monsanto Judgment has been distinguished which is incorrect. Attention is invited to ITAT judgment of the said case ( Pg 172 of PB 1- Para 7 of the Order) which lists out the activities and terms of arrangement between Monsanto Company and Gorwers. The facts of the Monsanto case are very much similar to that of assesse company and hence the argument that Monsanto judgement was distinguished is actually wrong. 14. ITAT has extracted findings from AY 2001-02 in penalty order (PB 2 page 50- para 11). Each year is different year and there is no allegations, for the year under review anywhere. 15. Assesse's Agricultural Exemption claim was challenged for the first time in AY 2001-02 relying upon Delhi ITAT judgement in the case of Pro Agro Seeds. In the said case also Penalty was deleted by Delhi HC ( Pg 78-79 of PB 1). This aspect not dealt with by ITAT in its order. Infact in Proagro's Case on Merits, the issue involved was Sale of Germplasm and not Sale of Hybrid Seeds. (Refer Page 31 and 32 of PB 3). 16. Delhi ITAT while deciding on merits in assesse' s case relied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause in absence of no crop, there would be no procurement price to the farmer and the farmer will get nothing. In such circumstances, how the assessee could explain that the cultivation has been done by the company. Another strange feature is that how the assessee can claim as cultivator as its name is not appearing in the revenue land records maintained either as lessee of the land or the cultivator. 13. Further, if the logic of the assessee of the claim of agricultural income in the hands of the assessee is accepted as one of the opinion, then every businessman in the India, who buys crops from farmer, would become eligible for earning agriculture income by way of getting same lease agreements signed from the farmers and making accounting entries in their books of account to bifurcate the part of procurement price paid to farmer towards lease rent, fertilizer & chemical, labour & service charges. In our opinion, the assessee has made claim of agricultural income in mala fide manner and in gross abuse of the provisions of the Act. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold the assessee liable for concealment of particulars of income. Accordingly, we revers....