9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 25 Lakhs. Under this factual position, find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. - decided against assessee. - ITA No.2331/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 28-12-2018 - Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Shreehari Kutsa, CA For the Respondent : Smt. K. Lakshmi, JCIT (DR) ORDER PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-7, Bangalore dated 29.06.2018for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The ground raised by the assessee are as under. 1. The Order of the learned Commissioner passed under section 250 of the Act is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case. 2. The Appellant denies herself liable to be assessed to tax on a total income of ₹ 9,90,380/- as determined by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) as against the total income of ₹ 2,90,380/- as declared by the Appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition of ₹ 7,00,003/- is not jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice was issued to the assessee as to why agricultural income should not be adopted as per report of the Dy. Director Horticulture and the reply of the assessee dated 25-12-2017 has duly been considered by the AO. In view of above, the contentions of the appellant cannot be accepted. The adoption of agricultural income at ₹ 18 lakhs by the AO, under the facts in the case of the assessee, as against ₹ 25 lakhs declared in the return of income, is considered to be reasonable and justified. Consequently, the action of the AO to add balance of ₹ 7 lakhs as income from other sources is also upheld. Therefore, the ground of appeal of the appellant fails. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. First, I reproduce the written submissions dated 23.10.2018 of the learned AR of the assessee. The same read as under:- The Appellant most respectfully submits the following for kind consideration and gracious favorable orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal- 1. The Appellant filed return of income declaring total income of ₹ 2,80,380/- and agriculture income of ₹ 25,00,000/-. Case was selected for scrutiny and the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it cannot be accepted that crops have been cultivated without incurring any expenditure at all or at minimum expenditure and that the Appellant could cultivate best quality bumper crop without incurring expenditure on manure, pest control, irrigation, processing and labour. d. that the Appellant did not furnish details such as quantity of crops sold, date of sale, cost of expenditure, rate at which sold, etc., until end of assessment. 6. The learned AO concluded the assessment making an addition of ₹ 7 lakhs being the difference between declared net agriculture income of ₹ 25 lakhs and agriculture income determined by the AO of ₹ 17 lakhs. 7. The Appellant, aggrieved by the order of the AO, preferred statutory appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the Appellant filed written submissions. The CIT(A) however passed the appellate order dismissing the appeal of the Appellant. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Appellant is before your Honour. 8. The submissions of the Appellant before this Hon'ble Tribunal are as under - a. The learned AO is not justified in holding that the Appellant has concealed income from dairy farmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpose. Further, electricity expenditure is totally minimal in agriculture activity and so is water expenditure. These are practices of common knowledge in agriculture and the learned AO ought to have appreciated the same. d. In view of the above, the learned AO ought not to have held that the expenditure will have been incurred. The learned AO relied on the horticulture department report - which report - contrary to the observation of the AO and CIT(A) - was not confronted to the Appellant for answering. However, it is submitted that the report of the horticulture department has been prepared on the ideal-scenario basis, wherein they have reported mechanically without taking into account actual facts at all. In fact, the horticulture department did not even report that the Appellant cultivated Ragi in inter-cropping method with Coconut trees. e. As regards the observation of the learned AO that Appellant did not submitdetails regarding agriculture income earned, the same is being submitted now before this Hon'ble Tribunal as follows - Particulars ~ Income Coconut (approximately 600 trees and 100 kg a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own-coconuts and Arecanut too requires minimal day-to-day labour involvement, unlike other crops like paddy, wheat, jowar, etc., which are heavily labor intensive. The learned AO ought to have appreciated the nature of crop before deciding the labor-intensiveness. l. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the action of the learned AO and confirmation thereof by the learned CIT(A) is not in accordance with law. The reliance of both the authorities on the report of horticulture department when the same is not provided to the Appellant vitiates the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) is not justified in ignoring the plea of the Appellant in the written submission to direct the AO to provide the copy of the report of horticulture department. It is prayed before this Tribunal that the detailed explanation of the Appellant in this submission with regard to agricultural activity stands to explain all the issues raised by the AO in the assessment order. 9. It is prayed that on the basis of the above and such other submission made at the time of hearing, this appeal may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice. 6. I find that it is noted by the AO in Para 9 of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
