AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er passed by him and the CIT(A) has also erred in not only confirming but also enhancing the assessment. The orders passed by authorities below are bad in law and are liable to be quashed. 2. In any case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 251(1)(c) of the Act and erred in enhancing the impugned order which was passed for effect to the order of the honourable High court by treating the entire agricultural income in dispute as business income. The action of CIT(A) in enhancing the income being wholly erroneous both on facts and law applicable is to be disregarded and the enhancement as done is to be deleted. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts of the case that the assessing o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time of hearing, it is requested that the order passed be quashed or in the alternative a) the enhancement as done by the CIT(A) be deleted. b) The income as claimed exempt u/s 10(1) of the Act by the appellant be accepted. c) If the agricultural income is assessed as business income then eligible deduction U/s. 801B be granted and d) interest levied be deleted." Brief facts of the present appeal are as under: 2. At the outset, it is necessary to record the brief history of the present appeal which is as under: 1. Ld.AO passed the original assessment order under section 143(3) on 29/03/2004 making addition of Rs. 3,84,13,288/- by denying exemption under section 10 (1) of the Act in respect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble High Court in ITA No. 75/2007 (being revenue's appeal) for assessment year 2001-02 has summed up the issue alleged in para 3-6 of its order at page 198 of paper book. Hon'ble High Court framed the question of law to be answered as under: "1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that income derived by the assessee from manufacturing of seeds and sale of the same would amount to agricultural income which would be exempt under section 10 (1) of the Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in not taking into consideration the fact that assessee could not have had agricultural land in view of the provision of section 79-A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act?" 6. In appeal filed by assessee being ITA No. 284/2007, fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay that the amount allowed by Ld.AO in the original assessment order (amounting to Rs. 3,43,11,842/- under section 10 (1)), to be considered for disallowance in the hands of assessee. 6. Against enhancement made by Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. 7. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that, agricultural income amounting to Rs. 3,43,11,842/- was exempted by Ld.AO himself in original assessment order dated 29/03/2004. He submitted that, this issue was not disputed by assessee before any of authorities in the 1st round of appeal, and that, this issue does not arise out of order 14/07/2006 passed by Tribunal against which revenue and assessee preferred appeal before Hon'ble High Court. He submitted that, issue alleged by both asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er such circumstances, Ld.CIT(A) did not have jurisdiction to issue enhancement notice to assessee to consider claim which was allowed by Ld.AO in original assessment order passed dated 29/03/2004 and was not alleged by assessee before Ld.CIT(A). 13. On a query being raised by the bench regarding any further appeal preferred by assessee, Ld.AR submitted that, assessee has filed SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court, against order passed by Hon'ble High Court, which was admitted on 08/01/2015 and has been converted into Civil Appeal no.000356/2015. Ld.AR has filed case status before Hon'ble Supreme Court, according to which the appeal is pending final hearing. 14. We note that, the issue considered by Ld.CIT(A) for invoking section 151 was ....