2008 (8) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mo of appeal. We are, therefore, limiting ourselves to that question alone. The said question relates to the issue of whether the tribunal was correct in accepting the additional agricultural income of the assessee by relying on post search facts, and ignoring the fact that the additional agricultural income already formed part of the undisclosed income under Section 158 BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. This issue has been raised in the context of two orchards belonging to the assessee; one at Surath (Mandi) and the other at Kullu, both of which are in Himachal Pradesh. It is an admitted position that the assessee has various fruit bearing trees in the said orchards. The fruits that are produced in the said orchards are apples, pears, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Assessing Officer was that the assessee had already shown returns in respect of the said orchards which were on the higher side compared to the returns of her husband's and son's orchards within the same area. The Assessing Officer also took note of the fact that the agreements for sale of fruits which had been placed on record were common between the assessee, her husband, her son and the third party. 4. The tribunal in the second round concluded, after looking at the evidence, that insofar as the orchard at Surath was concerned, in addition to the income derived from the sale of apples and pears, the assessee was also deriving income from the sale of other fruits, namely, cherries, almonds and pecan nuts. This latter income had no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing Officer to examine the extent of the agricultural income which had been undisclosed. On the basis of the evidence collected by the Assessing Officer, the tribunal, being the final fact finding authority, had accepted the assessee's version and there can be no quarrel with the same. 7. However, as noted above, we find that there has been a great deal of confusion with regard to the stand taken by the assessee. From the order of the tribunal in the first round, it appears as if the assessee had disclosed income from apples and pears in respect of only the Surath orchard and no agricultural income at all had been disclosed in respect of the orchard at Kullu. But, the stand of the assessee in the second round, as appearing from the order....