9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... griculture income. The estimation made by ld. CIT(A) is on the lower side. The assessee has claimed yield of cash crop. In our view the estimation of agriculture income @ ₹ 50,000/- per acre per annum would meet the end of justice. Thus, the assessee s share being 50% would be ₹ 12,50,000/-. Therefore, the assessee is granted a partial relief of ₹ 2,50,000/-, in addition to the relief granted by ld. CIT(A). In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are partly allowed. - ITA No. 7014/Mum/2017, ITA No. 7015/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 29-5-2019 - Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice-President And Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Jitendra Jain (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesheri (DR) ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. These two appeal by assessee under section 253 of Income-tax Act ( Act ) are directed against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai [hereinafter referred as ld. CIT(A)] dated 06.11.2017 07.11.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14 2014- 15 resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee and ld. Department Representative (DR) for the revenue and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that assessee owns 50 acres of agricultural land along with his mother in a remote Village Khatalwada, Taluka Umargam, District- Valsad, State of Gujarat. The agricultural land was purchased by assessee and his family member in the year 1996 to 2007. In the land, various cash crops like Mango, Chickoo, Guava, Jackfruit etc are grown and to some extent, the vegetables are also grown. The assessee is practicing Advocate having practice in Bombay High Court and having its office in Bombay and visits the agricultural land once or twice in every month. The agricultural activities are look after by his wife and mother personally with the help of laborers and various staff, the assessee has employed one Mukesh Sangani, who is also Advocate by profession but does not have substantial practice and managing the agricultural activities at the farm land of the assessee. The assessee is maintaining income expenditure account and furnished the details thereof to the Assessing Officer. 5. During the year under consideration, net ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Profit Loss Account of Agricultural Income from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 is also filed. On our query regarding expenditure of repair and maintenance of ₹ 7,77,390/-. The ld. AR of the assessee explained that during the year, the boundary wall of the Farm land was repaired and expenditure was incurred on fencing and erecting the boundary wall. 8. The ld. AR of the assessee prayed for deleting the entire addition. To substantiate his contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) vs. CIT [75 ITR 33 (Bom)] the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Neel Giri Krishi Farms Pvt. Ltd. (38 taxmann.com 69 (Allahabad. HC), decision of Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT vs. Vijay Sales (52 taxmann.com 310 (Mum. Trib.), decision of Jaipur Tribunal in Resonance Adventures (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (83 taxmann.com 232 (Jaipur Trib.) 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. DR for the revenue submits that the ld. CIT(A) has already granted substantial relief to the assessee despite the fact that the assessee fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how-caused about audit accounts, the assessee explained that his firm is separately assessed and audited. The Assessing Officer further concluded that there is no evidence of agriculture production nor produced the documentary evidence of expenses and that the assessee failed to substantiate his genuineness of agriculture activities. The Assessing Officer treated the agriculture income as bogus agriculture income. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished detailed written submission as recorded in para-4 of his order. The assessee also submitted that the report of Inspector, who was allegedly deputed to verify the facts regarding agriculture activities, was not supplied to the assessee. The Assessing Officer violated the principle of natural justice. The assessee further explained that another Inspector was deputed without notice to the assessee for verification of fact for Assessment Year 2014-15, who vide his report dated 05.12.2016 accepted that agriculture activities was carried on at the farm-land. Copy of said report was furnished to the assessee in the assessment proceeding. Therefore, the assessee prayed that report of earlier year should not be relied up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or. In our view, all these documentary evidence are not in dispute. The bone of contention between the Assessing Officer and the assessee is about the receipt of agriculture produce and the evidence of agriculture yield. The ld AR for the assessee has filed the copy of the survey report dated 08.04.2010 showing the complete details of various details of boundary wall, electric poles, lights, High tension line, different kinds of fruits the trees. The different trees are shown along with their site and locations and number. The ld. DR during his submissions has not disputed the survey report. 14. In the preceding assessment year, the assessee claimed that the revenue has accepted per acre per year the agriculture income @ ₹ 61,577/-, for assessment year 2010-11, ₹ 86,772/- for assessment year 2011-12 and ₹ 76,271/- for assessment year 2012-13. Though, the assessee has not filed copies of assessment orders for those assessment years, if such income was accepted in the scrutiny assessment or intimation under section 143(1). Similarly, this fact is not disputed by ld. DR for the revenue. Even for the year under consideration similar income offered by jo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agriculture income @ ₹ 40,000/- per acre per annum. The ld. CIT(A) has not given any basis for estimating such agriculture income. In our view, the estimation made by ld. CIT(A) is on the lower side. The assessee has claimed yield of cash crop. In our view, the keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the estimation of agriculture income @ ₹ 50,000/- per acre per annum would meet the end of justice. Thus, the assessee s share being 50% would be ₹ 12,50,000/-. Therefore, the assessee is granted a partial relief of ₹ 2,50,000/-, in addition to the relief granted by ld. CIT(A). In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are partly allowed. ITA No. 7015/Mum/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) 18. The assessee has raised identical grounds of appeal as raised in appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, which we have partly allowed. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency, the appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 is also allowed with similar direction. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee for both A.Ys. are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/05/2019. - - TaxTMI - TM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
