2017 (5) TMI 1510 - AT - Income Tax

Estimation of agricultural income - Held that - Referring to to the appeals by/against other family members of Bagwan Group 2017 (2) TMI 1112 - ITAT PUNE the assessee is not maintaining the books of account regularly. We have already held that there is need for estimation for agricultural income in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee before us agreed to the proposition laid down by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal that 80% of the standard yield reported by ICAR in the case of Vegetable yield be adopted to work out the income from Vegetables and flowers in the hands of the assessee on the basis of individual land holdings. Accordingly we hold so. Necessary evidence would be furnished in this regard by the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In case there is yield from fruits then 80% of the standard yield reported by NHB should be adopted to work out the income in the hands of the assessee based on their land holding. However in case the assessee has already shown the yield below 80% of the standard yield reported by the above said Government bodies then the Assessing Officer is directed not to disturb the same and accept it. Expenses on contractual factor - We have already decided the issue of estimation in the hands of the assessee in the paras hereinabove with our directions. We further hold that no further deduction is to be made on account of contractual farming factor @50%. The basis for the said estimation is pursuant to the facts of Shri Badshah Bagwan and where the statement of the said person was never confronted to the assessee nor the information supplied to the assessee the said information cannot be applied to decide the issue against the assessee. In any case in the facts of the case the assessee has claimed that it has grown vegetables on its agricultural land holding and he pleads that the said vegetables are not grown on sharing system basis. We find merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard and accordingly we hold so. Estimation of agricultural income in the hands of the assessee is on account of sugarcane wherein part of the land was under the crop of sugarcane from A.Y. 2001-02 onwards. The question arose of estimation of the said agricultural income from sugarcane produce relying on the facts of Shri Badshah Bagwan and 50% was deducted towards agricultural expenses and paid towards contractual farming. Since the facts of the present case are at variance to the facts in Shri Badshah Bagwan we find no merit in deducting any amount towards batai expenses in respect of the estimation of income arising from sugarcane plantation. We direct the Assessing Officer to apply 80% of the rates available to the surgarcane produce as sugarcane is sold to Mills. Necessary evidence would be furnished by the assessee to establish its case. The Assessing Officer shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before adjudicating the issue of income arising from sugarcane produce and also as held in the case of vegetables and flowers. Assessee had declared the amount as agricultural income part of which has been accepted as agricultural income by the authorities below and the balance amount has been assessed as income from other sources in the hands of the assessee. Once the income is estimated in the hands of the assessee the same is presumably held to have been utilized for the acquisition of the assets and there is no merit in any other addition in the hands of the assessee on account of unexplained investment in assets found during the course of search. We hold so. The appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Estimation of agricultural income.
2. Deduction for contractual farming (Batai).
3. Unaccounted investment in assets found during the search.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Estimation of Agricultural Income:
The assessee challenged the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s methodology for estimating income from sugarcane and vegetables/fruits, which involved deducting 54% and 50% respectively for agricultural expenses and contractual farming. The CIT(A) relied on the case of Badshah Bagwan, but the assessee argued that no documents were found to support the assumption of contractual farming in their case. The Tribunal noted that similar issues were previously adjudicated in the case of other family members of the Bagwan Group, where the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate agricultural income based on 80% of the standard yield reported by NHB for fruits and ICAR for vegetables, without further deductions for contractual farming.

2. Deduction for Contractual Farming (Batai):
The CIT(A) applied a deduction for contractual farming based on the facts of Badshah Bagwan, where a statement was made about receiving 50% of receipts for agricultural activities. However, this statement was not confronted to the assessee, and the Tribunal found no merit in applying this deduction to the assessee's case. The Tribunal held that vegetables are not typically grown on a sharing system and directed that no further deduction should be made for contractual farming.

3. Unaccounted Investment in Assets:
The Assessing Officer argued that the assessee's agricultural income was not sufficient to explain the source of assets found during the search, suggesting that the income declared was higher than what was actually earned. The Tribunal held that once the agricultural income is estimated and assessed, it should be presumed to have been utilized for acquiring the assets. Therefore, no additional addition should be made for unexplained investment in assets.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of the assessees and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate agricultural income based on 80% of the standard yield reported by NHB and ICAR, without further deductions for contractual farming. The Tribunal also held that the estimated agricultural income should be presumed to have been used for acquiring the assets found during the search, thus no additional addition for unexplained investment is warranted. The findings apply mutatis mutandis to the appeals of other family members of the Bagwan Group.