Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Kolhapur V. Shivendra Nagojirao Patankar,(HUF), Kolhapur

CO 53/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0665 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2018
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV GHEI
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 234B; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.260/PUN/2018 ! ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF), A/P. PADALI KHURD, TAL. KARVEER, DIST. KOLHAPUR -416 041 PAN : AAQHS3865M ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. ITO, WARD-1(2), KOLHAPUR / RESPONDENT CO NO.53/PUN/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.260/PUN/2018) A.Y. 2014-15 ITO, WARD-1(2), KOLHAPUR CROSS OBJECTOR / V/S. SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF), A/P. PADALI KHURD, TAL. KARVEER, DIST. KOLHAPUR -416 041 PAN : AAQHS3865M ....... / APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJEEV GHEI / DATE OF HEARING : 17.09.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2018 2 ITA NO.260/PUN/2018 & CO NO.53/PUN/2018 SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF) / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-1, KOLHAPUR, DATED 28-11-2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15. REVENUE ALSO FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION JUSTIFYING THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.260/PUN/20 18 AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN CO NO.53/PUN/ 2018 ARE EXTRACTED HERE AS UNDER : GROUNDS BY ASSESSEE : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 81,00,000/- REJECTING THE SOURCE EXPLAINED AS F ROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME ONLY. THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE ASSESSEE COMES FROM A ROYAL FAMILY. THE ASSESSEE'S FOREFATHE RS WERE AWARDED AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY THE THEN RULERS FOR THEIR WOR K DONE. THE LAND HOLDINGS OF ABOUT 250 ACRES OF LAND WERE IN THE POS SESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, AND WERE UNDER ACTUAL CULTIVATION THROUGH THE APPOINTED TENANTS. THE ASSESSEE EARNED SUFFICIENT AGRICULTURA L INCOME TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. THE ADDITION OF RS. 81 LAKHS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE FACTS SHOW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 81 LAK HS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WAS CHANGED BY LD. CIT(A) INVOKING S. 29 2B AS MISTAKE AND TREATING THE SAME AS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE BANK ACCOUNT CA NNOT BE CONSIDERED AS HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THIS THE ADDITI ON CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 69 IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED. IT D ESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN INVOKING S. 292B OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT IT WAS MISTAKE COMMITTED BY AO. IN FACT AND LAW THE S. 292B APPLIE S WHEN QUESTION COMES AND UP WHEN RETURN OF INCOME IS CHALLENGED AS INVALID S.292B PROTECTS THE VALIDITY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE PRESENT ISSUE IS SIMPLY TAXABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ITS DEPOSITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT. NEITHER S.69 NOT S.68 APPLIES. THE ADDITION IS UNS USTAINABLE. IT BE DELETED. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE FACTS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE COMING FROM THE ROYAL FAMILY AND HAVING LARGE HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS HAD NO OTHER SOURCE O F INCOME AS HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY OTHER INCOME EA R NING ACTIVIT I ES. THE ONLY SOURCE WAS AGRICULTURA L INCOME. IT IS NOT PROVED OTHERWISE. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION 3 ITA NO.260/PUN/2018 & CO NO.53/PUN/2018 SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF) OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SOURCE OF DEPOSITS INTO B ANK ACCOUNT AS FROM AGRI C ULTURA L INCOME BE ACCEPTED AND ADDITION BE DELETED. 6. ON THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE DIFFICULT I ES A R OSE SOLE L Y BECAUSE THE ADVOCATE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD APPEARED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE FA CTS AND LAW PROPERLY. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROPERLY REPRESENTED BEFORE AP PELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO E XPLAIN THE POINTS OF LAW AND FACTS BY SETTING ASIDE DE-NOVO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO ASSESS I NG AUTHORITY. 7. ON THE FACTS AND C I RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BEFORE AO W HO WAS I N FACT NOT CA BUT A 'CONSULTANT'. HE DID NOT ATTEND PROPERLY B EFORE AO IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON THIS COUNT ALSO THE ASSE SSEE DESERVES TO BE AFFORDED ONE MO R E OPPORTUNITY SO DO COMPLETE JUSTICE TO HIM. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIR C UMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEVY OF I NTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C IS NOT JUSTIFIED . CROSS OBJECTIONS BY REVENUE : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO ADDI TION OF RS.81,00,000/-, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME U/S.69 INSTEAD OF SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT WHICH WAS RIGHTLY DONE BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRC U MSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE AO HAS RIGHTL Y INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT TO M A KE THE SAID ADDITION, IRRESP E CTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE , AS HELD IN THE CASE OF SHRI . ARUNKUMAR J . MUCHHALA VS CIT-8 IN ITA NO. 363 OF 2015 (BOMBAY HI GH COURT) AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA (HUF) VS CIT REPORTED IN 69 TAX MANN . COM 219 (SC). 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN DIR E CTING THE AO TO RECTIFY THE ADDITION U/S. 69 I NSTEA D OF SECTION 68 B Y INVOKING SECT I ON 292 B OF THE ACT, SPECIA L LY W H EN THERE WAS NO MISTAKE COMM I TTED BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT? 4. THE APPE L LANT CRAVES L EAVES TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OR RAISE ANY OTHER GROUND AT THE TIM E OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T H E HON' BL E HIG H CO U RT WHICH MAY PL EASE BE GRANTED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS, WHICH LED TO FILING OF THIS AP PEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION, INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE (IS AN HUF ) AND CLAIMED THAT THE HUF IS IN AN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. ASSESSEE EAR NS AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS WELL AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. A SSESSEE, MR. PATANKAR SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO, IS ASSESSED AS THE KARTA OF THE HUF. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 4 ITA NO.260/PUN/2018 & CO NO.53/PUN/2018 SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF) RS.4,97,210/- AND THE SAME WAS REVISED REPEATEDLY. DETA ILS OF THE INCOME/REVISED INCOME ARE GIVEN IN TABULAR FORM IN PAGE 2 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, AO EXA MINED THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THERE ARE HUG E CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,50,20,600/-. AO ADDED THE SAME U/S.68 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, AO ALSO ADDED ANOTHER SUM OF RS.2,07,716/- ON AC COUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA NO.6 .1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AT THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSED INCOME IS DETERMINED AT RS.1,55,84,838/-. 4. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1,50,20,500/- ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS HE HAS HUGE TRACK OF LANDS. ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THESE LANDS FROM THE ROYAL FAMILIES IN THE PAST. ASSESSEE FILED RELEVANT 7/12 EXTRACTS IN SUPPORT O F THE SAME. ON THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,50,20,600/-, THE SOURCE OF THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS WAS THE ISSUE FOR SCRUTINY BY THE AO. ASSESSEE FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS STATING THAT RS.81 LAKHS IS THE CASH DEPOSITS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE BALANCE OF RS.69 LAKHS CONSTIT UTE CHEQUE ENTRIES RECEIVED FROM MR. UMESH V.KASHIKAR (RS.34 LAKHS) AND SHRI RAKESH MULCHAND MEHTA (RS.35 LAKHS). 5. SO FAR AS THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.81 LAKHS CASH IS CONCE RNED, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDE THAT THE SAME CONSTITU TE AGRICULTURAL INCOME PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD OF 5 TO 10 YEARS OF AGRIC ULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE LANDS UTILIZED BY 250 TO 300 CULTIVATORS OF THE LANDS. FURTHER, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT MR. VINAYAK B. BAKARE WAS MANAG ING THE SAID LANDS AND HE IS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE THE MONEY TOWARDS RENT/SALE PRODUCE FROM THE SAID CULTIVATORS. ON RECEIPT, MR. VINAYAK B. BAKARE DEPOSITED THE SAME INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE WITH VIJAYA 5 ITA NO.260/PUN/2018 & CO NO.53/PUN/2018 SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF) BANK, KOLHAPUR. IN RESPONSE TO AOS QUERY ON THE EXIST ENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MR. VINAYAK B. BAKA RE AND THE CULTIVATORS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 14-06- 2013. AO DIRECTED THE SCRUTINY AGAINST MR. VINAYAK B. BAK ARE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NOTICE U/S.131 WAS ISSUED A ND THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE. ALL ATTEMPTS WERE MADE BY THE AO INCLUDING EMP LOYING THE SERVICES OF THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR. INSPECTOR WAS DEP UTED TO BRING MR. VINAYAK B. BAKARE TO INCOME-TAX OFFICE FOR EXAMINATION. BUT THE SAME DID NOT MATERIALIZE AS NON-COOPERATION OF MR. VINAYAK B. BAK ARE CONTINUED. EVENTUALLY, THE AO HELD THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT S IN THE VIJAYA BANK, KOLHAPUR STAND UNEXPLAINED AND MADE ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT ON THE BONAFIDE OF THE SAID AGREEMENT. AO OPINED THAT T HE AGREEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AN AUTHENTIC DOCUMEN T. THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE HAND-WRITING AND THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT CONTRACTS IN MANY ASPECTS. EVENTUALLY, THE AO INVOKED T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. INFACT, THERE IS SOME MESS IN THE DEPOSIT OF SAID CASH ORIGINALLY IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT WITH THE SAID BANK AND SUBSEQUENTLY INTO THE NORMAL BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. FURTHER, THE FACTS RELATING TO OTHER ADDITION OF BALANCE OF RS.69 LAKHS INCLUDE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CREDITED IN THE BA NK ACCOUNT WITH NARRATION BY SUS RECEIPT DEPOSIT. LIKE THE SUM OF RS.81 LAKHS, THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO ORIGINALLY DEPOSITED IN THE CAPIT AL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME 1988 BEFORE THE SAME IS TRANSFERRED TO NORMAL BANK ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES FAILURE TO DEMONSTRA TE WITH EVIDENCE THE SOURCE OF BOTH THE AMOUNTS, I.E. RS.81 LAKHS A S WELL AS RS.69 LAKHS, THE AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION AS UNEXPLA INED CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,50,20,500/-. CONTENTS OF PARA NOS. 5.1 TO 6 ITA NO.260/PUN/2018 & CO NO.53/PUN/2018 SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF) 5.6 CONTAIN THE SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION AND THE REASON ING GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS, IT IS A CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO EVIDENCE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN M R. VINAYAK B. BAKARE, THE ASSESSEE AND THE CULTIVATORS QUA THE GENER ATION OF EXEMPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE MR. VINAYAK B. BAKARE FOR EXAMINATION AND FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AS SUCH, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT FOOLPROOF. MR. VINAYAK B. BAKARE NEVER COOPERATED WITH THE INVESTIGATION/SCRUTINY OF THE AO. 7. FURTHER, REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,07,716/-, RELEVANT FACTS INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE REPORTED EARNING OF THE INTERE ST INCOME OF RS.5,74,338/- AND THE TDS CERTIFICATE DIFFERS BOTH IN EARNING OF GROSS INCOME AS WELL AS TDS AMOUNT DEDUCTED BY THE BANKER OU T OF THE SAID INTEREST EARNINGS. ON FINDING THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED MERE LY RS.3,66,612/- IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN, FOR WANT OF RECONCILIA TION, THE AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.2,07,716/- ON ACCOU NT OF DIFFERENT AMOUNT BETWEEN THE GROSS INTEREST INCOME AND THE INTER EST DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME (RS.5,74,338 RS.3,66,612/-) CONTENTS OF PARA NOS. 6.1 TO 6.2 ARE RELEVANT. WHILE MAKING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.2,07,716/- THE AO CONSIDERED THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S. 80TTA OF THE ACT RELATING TO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT ON DEPOSITS IN SAVI NG ACCOUNT . 8. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ADDITIONS, ASSESSEE FILED THE AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). ASSESSEE COULD NOT IMPROVE HIS CASE D URING THE SAID PROCEEDINGS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE 7 ITA NO.260/PUN/2018 & CO NO.53/PUN/2018 SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF) ON ONE SIDE AND THE OBTAINING OF REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE OTHER, THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE AFTER CONSIDERING THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO IN MAKING THE SAID ADDITIONS . TO SUM UP, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.81,20,500/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN VIJAYA BANK, KOLHAPUR AND H OWEVER, GRANTED RELIEF OF RS.69 LAKHS CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS EXPLAINED. IN PARA NO.5.17, THE CIT(A) GAVE THE REASONING F OR GRANTING RELIEF OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.69 LAKHS. CIT(A) APPRECIATED THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF THE TWO CREDITORS, I.E. MR. RAKESH MULC HAND MEHTA AND MR. UMESH V. KASHIKAR. NOTICE U/S.131 OF THE AC T, DATED 04- 08-2016 ISSUED TO THE BANK MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK HELPED THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE SAID RELIEF. 9. REGARDING THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.81,20,500/-, IT IS THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THIS AMOUNT CREDITED CONSTITUTE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PASS THE TESTS ENVISAGED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. SIDDHARTH J. DESAI 139 ITR 628, SARIFA BIBI MOHAMED I BRAHIM VS. CIT 204 ITR 632, MAHAVIR ENTERPRISES VS. UOI 244 IT R 781 (RAJ.). CONTENTS OF PARA NO.5.16 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ARE RELEVANT. 10. BEFORE US, ON THE ADDITION OF RS.81 LAKHS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK ON FACTS AS WELL AS ON CASE LAWS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HOLDS HUGE T RACKS OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THEREFORE, IS AN AGRICULTURIST IN HUF C APACITY. THE INCOME SO EARNED BY HIM AS KARTA OF HUF OUT OF TH E LANDS CONSTITUTE GENUINE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE QUA THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR RS.81 LAKHS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER, LD. 8 ITA NO.260/PUN/2018 & CO NO.53/PUN/2018 SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF) COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF MR. VINAYAK B. BA KARE, DATED 13-08-2018 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS BEING FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORT OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT. BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO THE SAID AFFIDAVIT, LD. COUN SEL SUBMITTED THAT MR. VINAYAK B. BAKARE CONFIRMS THE FACTS ST ATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND VOLUNTEERED TO HELP THE ASSESSEE TO COLLEC T THE AGRICULTURAL RENT FROM THE FARMS. CONTENTS OF THE SAME CAN BE VER IFIED BY THE AO IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS IF THE BENCH FINDS IT NECESSARY. FURTH ER, ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SARIFA BIBI MOHAMED IBRAHIM VS. CIT 204 ITR 632 (SUPRA), LD . COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE PASSES ALL THE TESTS. THEREFORE , THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SOURCES SHOULD BE ACC EPTED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT CONSIDERING THE GAPS ON FACTS THE MATTER CAN BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH EXAMIN ATION OF THE ISSUES. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVENUE BASICALLY STRENGTHENS THE ORDER OF CIT(A) QUA TH E APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. THUS, THIS CROS S OBJECTION ALSO INDIRECTLY RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.81 LAKHS ON AC COUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE IN GRANTING RELIEF TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.69 LAKHS AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE. HO WEVER, REGARDING THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.81 LAKHS ON ACCO UNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN VIJAYA BANK, KOLHAPUR, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS FA IR AND REASONABLE AND THE SAME NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED. REGARDIN G THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR REMANDING THE EN TIRE ISSUE TO THE 9 ITA NO.260/PUN/2018 & CO NO.53/PUN/2018 SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF) FILE OF AO, LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO/CIT(A). REFERRING TO THE SAID AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI VINAYAK B. BAKARE, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME CONSTITUTES A SELF-SERVING PAPER AND HENCE, NEEDS TO BE REJECTED AND DISMISSED. 12. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. SO FAR AS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THE SA ME RELATES TO THE DECISION OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.81 LAKHS U/S.69 OF THE ACT IN PLACE OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS INVOKED BY T HE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CIT(A) HELD THA T SUCH CHANGES IN SECTIONS IS PERMISSIBLE BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 292B OF THE ACT. IN ANY CASE, THIS ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.81 LAKHS. 12.1 SO FAR AS THE CONFIRMATION OF SAID ADDITION OF RS.81 LAKH S IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THERE IS NEED FOR BRINGING MORE FACTS O N TO THE RECORD. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT OF INVESTIGATING INTO THE FACT OF EX ISTENCE OF 250 TO 300 FARMERS WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE CULTIVATED THE ASSESSEE S LANDS IN THE HILLY AREAS. FURTHER, AO IS REQUIRED TO INVESTIGATE ON TH E DETAILS OF CROPS GROWN ON THE HILLY AND ROCKY AREAS OVER THE YEARS. AO IS ALSO TO INVESTIGATE THE ARRANGEMENT OF THESE FARMERS GIVING RENTA LS/SALE PROCEEDS AND THE REASONS FOR GIVING THE SAME TO MR. VINA YAK B. BAKARE ON FIVE YEARLY BASIS AND NOT ON THE SET MARKET PRACTIC E OF ANNUALLY OR HALF YEARLY. 12.2 FURTHER, COMING TO THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY MR. VINAYA K B. BAKARE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT, AO IS DIRECTED TO PROBE DEEPLY INTO EACH AN D EVERY CLAIM OF MR. VINAYAK B. BAKARE MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT. WE FIND MR. VIN AYAK B. BAKARE, HAS GONE ON RECORD IN STATING THAT HE HAS VOLU NTARILY OFFERED 10 ITA NO.260/PUN/2018 & CO NO.53/PUN/2018 SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF) HIMSELF FOR COLLECTING/RECOVERING THE RENT/SALE PROCEEDS FROM THE FARMERS AND THERE IS A REQUIREMENT OF KNOWING THE REASONS FOR SU CH VOLUNTARY ACT. THIS VOLUNTARY ACT OF SHRI VINAYAK B. BAKARE REQUIRE DEEPER SCRUTINY OF FACTS. 12.3 AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, MR. VINAYAK B. BAK ARE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE HIMSELF BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIE S FOR EXAMINATION DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, FAILING WHICH, THE AO IS FRE E TO TAKE AN ADVERSE DECISION WHICH HAS ALREADY TAKEN IN T HE FIRST ROUND OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS THE CASE OF CLAIMING EX EMPTION U/S.10(1) OF THE ACT RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND TH E DUTY IS CAST ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE MR. VINAYAK B. BAKARE AND A LSO TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT THE CASH PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY MR. VINAYAK B. BAKARE ARE FROM THE FARMERS AND OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL A CTIVITIES, I.E. FROM THE 250 TO 300 FARMERS WHO ARE USING THE ASSESSEE S LANDS. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT KNOW THE PREC ISE NUMBER OF FARMERS USING HIS LANDS FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. HE SHOULD BE SPECIFIC WHETHER IT IS 250 OR 300. HE SHALL NOT QUANTIFY THEM TH E LANGUAGE OF THE BAND OF 250 TO 300. ASSESSEE IS UNDER THE OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE THE NAMES PRECISELY AND UPDATED ADDRESSES OF THE FARMERS FO R FACILITATING THE INVESTIGATION BY THE AO/INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMEN T, AS THE CASE MAY BE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT IT IS A CASE OF WE IRDNESS THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IN LUMP-SUM PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD OF 5 YEARS. IT IS NOT THE EXISTING CONVENTION IN THE FIELD O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE SAME GOES AGAINST THE NORMS OF THE AGRICULTU RAL PRACTICES THAT THE TILLER PAYS THE RENT ANNUALLY OR HALF YEARLY. AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE ALL THESE ASPECTS AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON FACTS AFTER CONDUCTING THOROUGH ENQUIRIES ON (1) FARMERS; (2) MR. VINAYAK B. 11 ITA NO.260/PUN/2018 & CO NO.53/PUN/2018 SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF) BAKARE; AND (3) ASSESSEE. IF NECESSARY, AO IS DIRECTED TO INVOKE ALL THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS FOR BRINGING REQUISITE FACTS ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE EXISTENCE OF LANDS, AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND TRANSFER OF MONEY FROM THE POCKETS OF FARMERS TO MR. VINAYAK B. BAKARE AND THEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 12.4 WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, AS REQUESTED IN GROUNDS 6 & 7 OF THE APPEAL, WE REMAND THE ENTIRE ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE ADDIT ION OF RS.81 LAKHS ALONG WITH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE REVE NUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR WANT OF RELEVANT FACTS AS WELL AS A SPEAKING ORDER ON EACH AND EVERY ISSUE DISCUSSED ABOVE. 12.5 THUS, GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 BEING CONNECTED TO THE ME RITS AS WELL AS LEGAL ISSUES OF THE ADDITION ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. GROUND NOS. 6 AND 7 BEING RELATED TO GRANTING OF ONE MORE OPPOR TUNITY ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.8 BEING CONSE QUENTIAL IS DISMISSED. CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE REVENUE BEING CONNEC TED TO THE GROUND NO.4 STANDS REMANDED FOR HARMONIOUS ADJUDICATION OF THE RELEVANT ISSUES. 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS W ELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( /VIKAS AWASTHY) ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SATISH 12 ITA NO.260/PUN/2018 & CO NO.53/PUN/2018 SHRI SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR (HUF) % ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-1, KOLHAPUR 4. THE PR.CIT-1, KOLHAPUR 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE