Sri Laxmi Narasimha Grape Garden, Hyd, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1064/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6317 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KURMI NAIDU
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH KUMAR RATHI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B (SMC) : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA.NO.1064/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA GRAPE GARDEN, HYDERABAD. PAN ABFFS0436G VS., THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. MAHESH KUMAR RATHI FOR REVENUE : MR. B. KURMI NAIDU DATE OF HEARING : 16.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.072016 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-II, HYDERABAD AND IT PER TAINS TO THE A.Y. 2008-2009. 2. AS COULD BE NOTICED FROM THE RECORD, THE ASSESS EE DECLARED GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.18,62,777 REFERABLE T O AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED ON SALE PROCEEDS OF VARIOUS CROPS (PA GE-16 OF THE PAPER BOOK DATED 16.06.2016) AND IN THE P & L A/C ( PAGE-9 OF PAPER BOOK DATED 21.02.2015) THE ASSESSEE DECLARED NET PROFIT OF RS.10,76,880 AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION TOWARDS DEPRE CIATION, FERTILIZER EXPENSES, GENERAL EXPENSES, SALARIES, WA GES ETC., THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF G ROWING CROPS, 2 ITA.NO.1064/HYD/2015 SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA GRAPE GARDEN, HYDERABAD. VEGETABLES AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE FOR THE P AST 15 YEARS OVER THE LAND ADMEASURING AC.36.01 GUNTAS SITUATED AT PU LIMAMIDI (V) IN MAHESWARAM (M), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. WHEN THE ASSE SSMENT WAS TAKEN-UP FOR SCRUTINY, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM; IT WAS ALSO NOT PROVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT SHOWN IN T HE BOOKS. SINCE IT HAD DECLARED MORE THAN RS. 18 LAKHS AS SALE PROC EEDS IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CULTIVATION OF CR OP, EXPENDITURE INCURRED THEREON, AND THE SOURCE OF RECEIPT IN THE FORM OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. ACCORDINGLY, A SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE WAS ISSUED CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SAME. IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HE OBSERVED AS UNDER : 1. AS PER THE COPIES OF VOUCHERS OF TAK PATTI FURNISH ED BY YOU, ON VERIFICATION IT IS FOUND THAT THEY DO NOT TAL LY WITH THE ORIGINAL RECORD MAINTAINED BY THE SUB-OFFICE, AGRICUL TURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, MIR-ALAM-MANDI. ACCORDING TO THE MARKET COMMITTEE RECORD, TAK PATTI BOOK NO.1450 WAS ACTUALLY ISSUED TO MR. B. CHANDRASEKHAR, COMMISSION. AGENT, WHEREAS THE SAME WAS SHOWN BY YOU AS IF IT W AS ISSUED TO MR. SHAHED ALI, COMMISSION AGENT. ALSO THE BOOK NO.3292 WAS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON 1-8-2009, AS SUCH IT SHOULD NOT CONTAIN THE TRANSACTIONS PRIO R TO 1-8-2009, WHEREAS IN YOUR MATERIAL, IT HAS THE TRANSACTIONS FOR THE F. Y. 2007-08. BASED ON THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHY THE TRANSACTIONS SHOWN BY YOU IN YOUR MATERIAL CANNOT BE SUPPOSED AS BOGUS? MORE OVER, THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ADMEASURING ACRES 3 6.18 IS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM. HOWEVER, OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS AS PER TRADING-CUM-PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM, WHY AN AMOUNT OF RS.15. 00 LAKHS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE FIRM UNDER T HE 3 ITA.NO.1064/HYD/2015 SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA GRAPE GARDEN, HYDERABAD. HEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AFTER ALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,000 PER ACRE AND FOR TOTAL LAND OF AC RES 36.18 GUNTAS THE AMOUNT COMES TO RS.3,62,777. PLEAS E EXPLAIN WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AT THE TIME OF HE ARING, IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ABOVE PROPOSAL. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH AUDIT REPORT, P & L A/C, BALANCE SHEET ETC., HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THERE IS NO RESPONSE EITHER FROM THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE OR TH E PARTNERS OF THE FIRM. THEREFORE, A.O. HAD NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE EXCE PT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILAB LE ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE-FIRM COULD NOT PROVE THE SOURCE OF INCOME, THE A.O. ALLOWED A NOMINAL INCOME OF RS.10,000 PER ACRE WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.3,62,777 AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKHS OUT OF THE TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS WAS TREATED AS INCOME SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN EARNED FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE BUT IT DES ERVES TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY , HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS. 2.2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED EVEN BEFORE HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. IN THE STATEM ENT OF FACTS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSISTS OF 04 PERSONS WHICH CARRIES ON BUSINE SS OF GROWING CROP, VEGETABLES AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND SALE THEREOF. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARED WITH THEIR AUDITOR FROM TIME TO TIME BEFORE THE A.O. AND PRODUCED THE EVIDE NCE CALLED FOR, WHICH WAS EXAMINED. THE A.O. DEPUTED ITI TO VERIFY THE 4 ITA.NO.1064/HYD/2015 SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA GRAPE GARDEN, HYDERABAD. GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITY. SINCE THERE IS NO OTHE R BUSINESS OTHER THAN AGRICULTURE, THE INCOME ESTIMATED AT RS.15 LAK HS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS WITHOUT ANY EVI DENCE AND IT IS ARBITRARY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SHOW-CAUSE NO TICE DATED 16.12.2010 ALONG WITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, TO ENABLE THEM TO APPEAR ON 24.12.2010, BUT THE SAID NOTICE WAS IN FACT DISPATCHED ON 20.12 .2010 WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 08.01.2011 WHE REAS THE ASSESSMENT WAS ACTUALLY COMPLETED ON 27.12.2010 AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED I N VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE I.E., BY NOT AFFORDIN G A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 2.3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT( A) WAS THAT EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNI TY WAS GIVEN BY THE A.O, ATLEAST BEFORE THE CIT(A) ASSESSEE OUGHT T O HAVE FILED SOME EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES BUT N O SUCH EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND THUS, TH ERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 07 GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ENCLOSED TO FORM NO.36 FILED BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GROUNDS ARE THAT THE CIT(A), WHILE PASSING THE ORDER, ERRED IN DISMISSIN G THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROPERLY NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS C OMPLETED WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO R EBUT THE 5 ITA.NO.1064/HYD/2015 SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA GRAPE GARDEN, HYDERABAD. ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS AND THUS THE ASSESSMENT I S BAD IN LAW. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICU LTURAL INCOME AT RS.3,62,777 IS NOT PROPER SINCE THE AGRICULTURAL AC TIVITY WAS CARRIED ON AT A PLACE WHICH IS CLOSE TO CITY BUT THE SAME W AS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE A.O. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS MR. M. MAHESH RESIDES AT THE FARM EXCLUSIV ELY TO TAKE CARE OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, WITH PROFESSIONAL HELP. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME, APART FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME, AND HENCE THE TREATMENT O F THE IMPUGNED RECEIPTS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. WHILE TAXING NON-AGRICUL TURAL RECEIPTS, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD ARE APPLICABLE AND THE S AME LOGIC WOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED EVEN IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT WAS MAINLY CONTENDED THAT THE BASIC TENETS OF THEORY OF REAL INCOME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION SINCE T HE ASSESSEE DECLARED ONLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.10,76,880 A ND HENCE, THE CASE DO NOT CALL FOR ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS. 4. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE W AS FILED VIDE LETTER DATED 14.06.2016 WHEREIN THE MRO CERTIF ICATES AND EXTRACTS OF PATTADAR PASS BOOKS OF PARTNERS, COPIES OF ELECTRICITY PASS BOOKS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF GARDEN WERE PLACED. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT TRACE THIS IN FORMATION AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE A.O. OR CIT(A). THE CIT( A), ON THE OTHER HAND, OBSERVED THAT RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF FILIN G OF FIRST APPEAL MORE THAN 4 YEARS HAVE ELAPSED BUT NOTHING WAS BRO UGHT ON 6 ITA.NO.1064/HYD/2015 SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA GRAPE GARDEN, HYDERABAD. RECORD AS TO HOW THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS WRONGL Y TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE MRO CERTIFICATES AR E VERY BLAND. PAGE-1 MERELY MENTIONS THAT MR. M. LAXMI NAR AYANA OWNS AC.14.18 GUNTAS OF LAND AT PULIMAMIDI VILLAGE AND T HE AGRICULTURAL INCOME THEREON IS ABOUT RS.4 LAKHS BUT THE CERTIFIC ATE IS DATED 14.08.2015 AND IT DOES NOT REFER TO THE PERIOD UNDE R CONSIDERATION I.E., WHETHER IT REFERS TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. SIMILARLY, CERTIFICATES AND PATTADAR PASS BOOKS FILED BY ASSES SEE DO NOT HELP IN ANY WAY TO APPRECIATE AS TO WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF CROPS GROWN IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND WHAT WOULD HAVE B EEN THE INCOME IN THAT YEAR. THE PHOTOCOPIES APPEAR TO BE THE LATE ST PHOTOGRAPHS WHEREAS ONE NEEDS TO CONSIDER AS TO WHETHER ANY ACT IVITY WAS CARRIED ON IN THE F.Y. 2007-08; WHEN ASSESSEE CLAIMS EXEMPTION IT IS FOR THEM TO PROVE THAT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS W ERE CARRIED ON IN THAT YEAR. THUS THE DETAILS FURNISHED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE BENCH SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED IN EXERCISE OF THE POW ERS VESTED UNDER RULE-29 OF THE I.T. RULES SINCE THOSE CERTIFI CATES, EVEN OTHERWISE, DO NOT ANY WAY HELP THE STAND OF THE ASS ESSEE. 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN MY OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT A GOOD CASE FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ADMITTEDLY, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE F.Y. 2007-08. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ITS CASE ATLEAST BEFORE T HE CIT(A) BY 7 ITA.NO.1064/HYD/2015 SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA GRAPE GARDEN, HYDERABAD. FURNISHING NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS STA ND THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM INDEED OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IT HAD CARRIED ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN THE F.Y. 2007-08. ASSESSEE-F IRM DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THOUGH SUFFI CIENT TIME WAS AVAILABLE. THEREFORE, I DO NOT SEE ANY JUSTIFICATIO N TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING S. I, THEREFORE, REJECT THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 6.1. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THREE MORE PAPER BOOKS (PAPER BOOK FILED ON 14.06.2016, 18.11.2015 A ND 22.02.2016) THE ASSESSEE FILED 03 SETS OF WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS OUT OF WHICH THE LATEST I.E., WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 14 .06.2016 IS TAKEN ON RECORD. IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 22.02.2016, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL FILED COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD TO PROVE THAT THE LETTER ADDR ESSED BY THE A.O. TO THE MANAGING PARTNER MR. LAXMI NARASIMHA GA RDEN WAS SERVED ON 08.01.2011. THIS WAS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CO NTENTION THAT THE A.O. PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING A PROPER O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 14.06.2016 THE ASSESSEE MAINLY SUBMITT ED THAT THE A.O. HAD NOT GIVEN A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD, BUT HE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY REASONS AS TO WHY THE FIRM CO ULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE ATLEAST BEFORE THE CIT(A), EVEN AFTER GAP OF MORE THAN 04 YEARS. THE PLEA OF THE COUNSEL IS THAT ALL THE P ARTNERS HAVE ENTERED INTO A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT TO CARRY ON AG RICULTURAL ACTIVITIES BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE PARTNERSHI P DEED DO NOT INDICATE AS TO WHAT WAS THE LAND WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO THE BOOKS OF 8 ITA.NO.1064/HYD/2015 SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA GRAPE GARDEN, HYDERABAD. THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE, RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAKE SWARI COTTON MILLS REPORTED IN 26 ITR 775 TO SUBMIT THAT EVERY P ERSON BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW THE EV IDENCE PUT TO USE AGAINST HIM. IN OTHERWORDS, IF A.O. PROPOSES TO MAKE AN ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A FAIR OPPOR TUNITY TO EXPLAIN ITS POSITION. DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FIL ED ON THE SAME LINES. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. ERRON EOUSLY ESTIMATED INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AT MERELY RS.10,000 PER ACR E WHICH HAS NO BASIS SINCE ASSESSEE IS IN THIS LINE OF ACTIVITY FO R OVER A PERIOD OF 15 YEARS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. REJECTED THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF MISMATCH OF TAK PATTIES BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR SALE OF AGR ICULTURAL PRODUCE IS NOT PROPERLY ORGANIZED AND IT IS THE COMMISSION AGENTS WHO ISSUE TAK PATTIES ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAS NO CONTROL. WHEN THERE IS NO DISPUTE OVER THE LAND HOLDING AND CULTIVATION, THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FERTILIZER AND MANURE AND OTHER RECORD SUBMITTED, APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S BEEN RETURNING GROSS RECEIPTS FROM AGRICULTURE OVER THE PAST SEVER AL YEARS WHICH MATCHES WITH THE INCOME DECLARED IN THIS YEAR. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM IS WELL-KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE DETAILED REASONS WERE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AND, IF THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, ATLEAS T BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE FURN ISHED PROPER DETAILS TO PROVE THAT THE FIRM OWNS AGRICULTURAL LA ND, AND BY WAY OF 9 ITA.NO.1064/HYD/2015 SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA GRAPE GARDEN, HYDERABAD. PARTNERSHIP DEED THE PARTNERS HAVE AGREED TO INTROD UCE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AS PART OF THEIR CAPITAL CONTRIBU TION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, EVEN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED IS SILENT. IN THE F. Y. 2007-08 THE GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED HOVERS AROUND RS .50,000 PER ACRE AND EVEN AS PER THE SO-CALLED AGRICULTURAL INC OME CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR OF THAT AREA, AS ON 14.08.2 015 THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WORKS OUT TO RS.20,000 PER ACRE (APPROXIMATELY) I.E., FOR A TOTAL EXTENT OF AC.14.1 8 GUNTAS ACCORDING TO THE TAHSILDAR THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WOULD BE A BOUT RS.4 LAKHS AND FOR AN EXTENT OF AC.29.16 GUNTS OF LAND THE INC OME WOULD BE AROUND RS.6 LAKHS (LAND BEING REFLECTED AS DRY LAND ). SUCH BEING THE CASE, 8 YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF CERTIFICATE, GOING BY THE COST INFLATION METHOD THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE F.Y. 2007-08 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MORE THAN RS.10,000 PER ACRE. HE MAIN LY SUBMITTED THAT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE-FIRM TO PROVE THAT IT H AS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.18 LAKHS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE A. O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE BALAN CE WAS CORRECTLY TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THERE IS N O DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME AND HENCE, IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CAPACITY TO EARN SUCH INCOME. T HE ONLY QUESTION IS THE HEAD OF INCOME. ANY INCOME WHICH IS NOT PROVED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX AS INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES; THE A.O, THEREFORE, WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREAT ING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 10 ITA.NO.1064/HYD/2015 SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA GRAPE GARDEN, HYDERABAD. 8. I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. D.R. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT TIM E, ATLEAST BEFORE THE CIT(A), TO PROVE THAT IT OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND S AND CARRIED ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN LARGE SCALE WHICH COULD HA VE YIELDED MORE THAN RS.18 LAKHS INCOME. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS FURNISHED EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL, NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS PRODUCED. WHEN A.O. POINTED OUT MISTAKES IN THE TAK PATTIES ETC., THE ASSESSEE COUL D HAVE GIVEN PROPER EXPLANATION BEFORE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO MIS MATCH OF NUMBERS IN TAK PATTIES AND COULD HAVE OBTAINED PROP ER EXPLANATION FROM COMMISSION AGENT ABOUT USE OF NEW TAK PATTY NUMBERS FOR EARLIER PERIOD. NO DOUBT, AS RIGHTLY PO INTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUPPORTED BY THE D ECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAKESWARI COTTON MILLS A ND OTHERS (SUPRA), THE A.O. IS DUTY BOUND TO GIVE A PROPER OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. BUT IT DOES NOT LESSEN THE BURDEN OF T HE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT ITS STAND ATLEAST BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT EVEN AFTER 4 YEARS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH EVEN AN IOTA O F EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE A.O. THOUGH SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL, THE EXPLANATION FOR NOT FILING THE SAME BEFORE CIT(A) W AS NOT CONVINCING. EVEN OTHERWISE THE EVIDENCE FILED ALONG WITH PETITION UNDER RULE 29 OF I.T. RULES IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CO ME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM MIGHT HAVE EARNED AGRICULTUR AL INCOME OF SUCH MAGNITUDE BY FARMING DRY LAND, THAT TOO IN F.Y. 2007-08 WHEN CERTIFICATES OF TAHSILDARS INDICATE THAT INCOM E WOULD BE LESS 11 ITA.NO.1064/HYD/2015 SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA GRAPE GARDEN, HYDERABAD. THAN WHAT WAS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIR CUMSTANCES, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E CIT(A) AND I THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMI SS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.07.2016. SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED 20 TH JULY, 2016 VBP/- COPY TO 1. SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA GRADE GARDEN, HYDERABAD. C/O. M.K. RATHI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 15-9- 182/1, 1 ST FLOOR, MAHARAJGUNJ, HYDERABAD 12. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-2, HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT-2, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT B (SMC) BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE