Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260 -A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A' (for brevity "the Tribunal") passed in ITA No. 200/CHANDI/2007 dated 25.10.2007 for the assessment year 2002 -03, claiming the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the processing of raw peas into pea seeds is a process ordinarily employed by the cultivator within the meaning of Section 2(1A)(b)(ii) or 2(1A)(b)(iii) in spite of the admission of the assessee in his statement on oath dated 28.02.2000 that there was Hindustan Lever Canning Plant which provides ready market for raw peas? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in holding that the assessee only employed an ordinary procedure of uprooting the plant and after thrashing and winnowing the same converted such plant of raw peas into pea seeds with a view to make the same as fit to be taken to market as there was no ready market available for the sale of raw peas. This was so in spite of the admission of the assessee himself in his statement on oath dated 28.02.2000 that there was Hindustan Lever Canning Plant which provides ready market for raw peas? (iii) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in holding that there is no incremental profit to be taxed as non -agricultural income under Rule 7(1) and 7(2) if the prevailing market rate of raw peas is taken into consideration, whereas the assessee in his calculations before the A.O. on 09.06.2000 has himself worked out the incremental profits -
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revenue has very fairly conceded that issue raised in the present appeal is identical to one raised in ITA No. 396 of 2005 decided on 03.02.2011. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the Tribunal had also relied upon its earlier order, which was under challenge in that appeal. It was further submitted that all the questions have been decided against the revenue and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed. In view of above, the present appeal is dismissed.
(3.) SINCE the present appeal has been dismissed on merits no orders are required to be passed on the application for condonation of delay in re -filing the appeal.;