आयकर अपील(cid:10)य अ(cid:11)धकरण ’ए’ (cid:14)यायपीठ, च(cid:14)े नई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीया सु(cid:9)ी प(cid:11)ावती एस, लेखा सद(cid:19)ा एवं

माननीय (cid:9)ीमनु कु मार िगtiर ,(cid:27)ाियक सद(cid:19) के सम(cid:28)

BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No 3539/Chny/2025 (cid:13)नधा(cid:17)रण वष/(cid:17) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Antony Micheal Joseph, v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, 16A, St. Michael Street, Mela Nagercoil Asaripallam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District 629201 [PAN: ACSPJ4422F (अपीलाथ(cid:22)/Appellant) ((cid:23)(cid:24)यथ(cid:22)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:22) कti ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr. R. Harshvardan, Advocate (cid:23)(cid:24)यथ(cid:22) कti ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Balamirtha, JCIT सुनवाई कti तार(cid:31)ख/Date of Hearing : 25.03.2026 घोषणा कti तार(cid:31)ख /Date of : 27.04.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

This appeal filed by the appellant is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 15.10.2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

2. The assessee has made the following grounds of appeal as under:

1. The impugned order is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The order of the learned CIT(A) upholding the addition of 227,00,000/- is contrary to law and the facts of the case.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in treating the receipt from the sale of rubber trees as non-agricultural business income, instead of holding it as agricultural income under section 2(1A) and exempt under section 10(1).

4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the rubber trees formed part of cultivated plantation land subjected to continuous agricultural operations, and that agricultural income does not depend on whether the Appellant or a predecessor planted the trees.

5. The learned CIT(A) erred in characterising the receipt as part of the Appellant's timber-trading business or as the sale of a timber-like capital asset, overlooking that the trees were fixed plantation assets and the receipt was consistently treated as agricultural income.

6. The learned CIT(A) misapplied judicial precedents relating to wild forest trees, like and failed to apply decisions such as Kalpetta Estates Ltd. v. CIT, and Ambat Echukutty Menon which hold that sale of old plantation trees in the ordinary course of cultivation constitutes agricultural income or non-taxable receipts.

7. The Ld. CIT(A), relying on Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh v. CIT and CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, has inappropriately applied authorities dealing with income from trees of wild, spontaneous forest growth to the present case, despite the admitted position that the Appellant's rubber trees formed part of cultivated plantation land.

8. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that even if the receipt is capital in nature, no taxable capital gains arise as no computable cost of acquisition exists for old plantation trees. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to consider that even if the receipts from the sale of rubber trees are regarded as capital in nature, no taxable capital gains can arise on their subsequent sale when they have become old and unyielding. The value of a fully productive rubber tree at the time of acquisition exceeds the scrap value realised when it is ultimately felled and sold as uneconomic and unyielding

9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and to place such further facts and submissions as may be considered necessary in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee owns 15.44 acres of agricultural land, including 11.35 acres purchased in 2016 with 1,868 standing rubber trees. The assessee carried out regular agricultural operations such as manuring, weeding, and latex tapping. During the relevant year, 1,800 old and unprodu