IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.216/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV 369, SECTOR H, VISHWA BANK BARRA, KANPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(3) KANPUR PAN:ABTPY7532M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI. P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. HARISH GIDWANI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 23 12 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 12 2015 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,74,0007- OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,90,000/- [ RS.4,40,000/- RS.50,000/-] DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBJECTING THE SAME TO TAXATION UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES''. 2. BECAUSE IN SUPPORT OF GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.4,67,100/- FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND EXPENDITURE OF RS.77,100/- INCURRED ON AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COMPLETE EVIDENCE AND AS SUCH, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING PART OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.1,74,000/- AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. :- 2 -: 3. BECAUSE THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR AND GRAM PRADHAN AS WELL AS CSA UNIVERSITY WERE NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT, RELIANCE ON SUCH REPORTS IS BAD IN LAW AND AS SUCH DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,74,000/- OUT OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF CSA UNIVERSITY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 4. BECAUSE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS THAT THE 'APPELLANT' HAD ALSO CARRIED OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATION ON THE LAND OF HIS DECEASED BROTHER IN SUPPORT OF WHICH COPY OF AUTHORIZATION LETTER/MUKHTARNAMA ISSUED BY DECEASED BROTHER WAS DULY SUBMITTED AND SUCH AN EVIDENCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IGNORED/OVERLOOKED SO AS TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. 5. BECAUSE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUNDS HEREIN FOR, A SUM OF RS.52,900/- SHOWN AS SALE PROCEEDS OF BY PRODUCTS SUCH AS BHOOSA OF WHEAT AND BEJHAR AND ARHAR KHARI WAS LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH. 6. BECAUSE IN ANY CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,74,000/- OUT OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS MUCH TOO HIGH AND EXCESSIVE. 7. BECAUSE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS, LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE SOLE CONTROVERSY RAISED WAS WITH REGARD TO THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.3.91 LAKHS FROM THE LAND HOLDINGS OF APPROXIMATELY 18 BIGHAS AND 9 BISWA OWNED BY HIM. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO HOLDING LAND ON BEHALF OF HIS BROTHERS FAMILY, WHO WAS ALSO JOINT OWNER OF THE :- 3 -: PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE LAND HOLDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CROPS CULTIVATED THEREIN AND HE HAS ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.2 LAKHS. BESIDES, HE HAS ALSO ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT RS.16,000/- FROM THE CROPS OF MANGO ORCHARD. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO CALLED REPORT/INFORMATION FROM THE CSA UNIVERSITY IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES. HAVING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THESE RELEVANT FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2 LAKHS AGAINST THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3,91,200/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH HIM. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED COPIES OF REVENUE RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS. HE HAS FURTHER REITERATED HIS CONTENTIONS AS RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. 5. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN TAKE BENEFIT OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS OWNED BY HIM AND NOT THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS OWNED BY HIS BROTHERS AND THEIR FAMILY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED REASONABLE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OUT OF ONLY 18 BIGHAS AND 9 BISWA. 6. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.2 LAKHS HAVING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE CSA UNIVERSITY WITH RESPECT TO THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES. SINCE NO AGRICULTURIST MAINTAINS ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE VERIFIED IN THIS REGARD, BUT IN ANY CASE :- 4 -: WHEN THE ASSESSEE OWNS CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS, REASONABLE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOULD BE ESTIMATED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 18 BIGHAS AND 9 BISWA, THEREFORE, REASONABLE INCOME SHOULD BE ESTIMATED ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED NET INCOME AT RS.2 LAKHS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES AND RS.16,000/- FROM MANGO ORCHARD. THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE AND WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH DECEMBER, 2015 JJ:2312 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR