Smt Annapurna , Tumkur V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 , Tumkur

ITA 2331/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7832 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K. LAKSHMI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHREEHARI KUTSA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Reason to believe
• Section: 250; 201

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 2 331 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 5 - 1 6 SMT. ANNAPURNA, NO. 11, SRI RANGA, TPK I MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRANAGAR, TUMKUR 572 102. PAN: AEMPA9240E VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, TUMKUR. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHREEHARI KUTSA , CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. K. LAKSHMI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 10 . 1 2 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 . 1 2 .2018 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-7, BANGALORE DATED 29.06.2018FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER PASSED UND ER SECTION 250 OF THE ACT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EVI DENCE, PROBABILITIES AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT DENIES HERSELF LIABLE TO BE ASSESS ED TO TAX ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,90,380/- AS DETERMINED BY THE LEARNE D AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS AGAINST THE TOTA L INCOME OF RS. 2,90,380/- AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ADDITIO N OF RS.7,00,003/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE IN COME IN QUESTION IS EXEMPT AND QUESTION OF MAKING IT TAXABLE DOES NOT A RISE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO INCOME DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM DAIRY FARMING ON THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED ABOVE. 8. IN THE VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL ITA NO. 2331/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 7 MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUIT Y. 3. THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED ON 23.10.2018 AND THE APPEAL MAY BE DECI DED BY CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) AS PER PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR READY REFERENCE. 5. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED, WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON 2 9-06-2018 IN SUPPORT OF HER GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHICH HAS DULY BE EN CONSIDERED. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS NO DETAILS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS QUANTITY OR, CROPS SOLD, DETAILS OF SALE PR OCEEDS, COST OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY OF THESE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES PRO VIDED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE CORRECT APPRO ACH OF REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE OFFICER OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR VERIFICATION AND REPORT. IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E REPORT HAIL TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE NATURE OF CROP, AGE OF THE PLANT, YIELD PER PLANT, MARKET VALUE OF THE CROP AND HAS CALCULATED THE INC OME ALTER CONSIDERING THE COST OF CULTIVATION. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE DY. DI RECTOR HORTICULTURE, WHO IS A GOVERNMENT OFFICER, ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT OF NOT BEING PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO COULTER THE REPORT IS ALSO NOT CORRECT AS THE AO HA S MENTIONED IN THE ORDER THAT A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE AS TO WHY AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED AS PER RE PORT 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 ABOV E, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE ADOPTION O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 18 LAKHS BY THE AO, UNDER THE FACTS I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, AS AGAINST RS. 25 LAKHS DECLARED IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME, IS CONSIDERED TO BE REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED. CONSEQUE NTLY, THE ACTION OF THE AO TO ADD BALANCE OF RS. 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 PERU SED 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 FOLLOWI NG FOR KIND CONSIDERATION AND GRACIOUS FAVORABLE ORDERS OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL- 1. THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING T OTAL INCOME OF RS.2,80,380/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.25,00,00 0/-. CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE LEARNED AO CALLED UPO N THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH DETAILS OF AGRICULTURE INCOME. 2. THE APPELLANT FURNISHED THE DETAILS IN RELATION TO THE AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY BY WAY OF RTC AND CROP INFORMATION. THE LE ARNED AO ITA NO. 2331/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 7 REQUESTED THE DY. DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE (ZP) TUM KUR TO CONDUCT INSPECTION AND FURNISH REPORT ON QUANTITATIVE DETAI LS OF CROPS GROWN, NUMBER OF TREES, APPROXIMATE INCOME AND PROBABLE EX PENDITURE. 3. THE LEARNED DY. DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE REPORTE DLY FURNISHED HIS REPORT TO THE AO WHEREIN HE DETERMINED THE GROSS IN COME FROM AGRICULTURE TO BE RS.25,95,540/- AND COST OF CULTIV ATION AS RS.8,95,331/- AND THUS THE NET INCOME AS RS.17,00,2 00/-. IT IS NECESSARY TO POINT OUT AT THIS POINT THAT A COPY OF THE SAID REPORT WAS NEVER PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT, IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE APPELLANT TO POINT OUT OBJECTIONS IN THIS REGARD. 4. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT HER I NCOME FROM AGRICULTURE IS MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DETERMINED B Y THE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT AS THE REPORT DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE CULTIVATION OF RAGI WHICH WAS ALSO NOT CONSIDER ED BY THE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT AS THE REPORT WAS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF WHAT WAS BEING CULTIVATED IN 2017 AND NOT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY CULTIVATED IN F.Y. 201415. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SU BMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT SHE DID NOT INCUR LABOR CHARGES BECAUSE THE LABORERS ARE GROUP OF FAMILY-MEMBERS WHO ARE TAKEN CARE OF BY TH E APPELLANT AND PAYMENT TO THEM IS BOTH IN CASH AS WELL AS IN KIND AS FOLLOWS - A. ALLOWING THEM TO MAKE USE OF COW MILK FROM 4 COWS ( INDIGENOUS (NAP) BREED) B. ALLOWING THEM TO GROW VEGETABLES IN THE FARM FOR TH EIR OWN CONSUMPTION AS WELL AS FOR SALE LOCALLY C. PROVIDING THEM RAGI FOR CONSUMPTION SUFFICIENT FOR ONE YEAR D. GIVING THEM MONEY AND CLOTHES FOR WOMEN AT THE TIME OF FESTIVALS 5. THE LEARNED AO HAS NOTED IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSM ENT - A. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED INCOME FROM DAIRY FARMING AND UNDER PROJECTED AGRICULTURE EXPENDITURE; B. THAT THE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT HAS ARRIVED AT SCI ENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF THE YIELD PER TREE AND ARRIVED AT THE R EASONABLE MINIMUM EXPENDITURE REQUIRED FOR IRRIGATION AND MAN URE TO CULTIVATE THE AGRICULTURE LAND AFTER CONSIDERING TH E COSTS TOWARDS LABOUR AND PROCESSING INVOLVED FROM STAGE O F PLUCKING THE COCONUT/ARECANUT TO DEHUSKING AND MAKING MAKING IT FIT FOR MARKET. C. THAT IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT CROPS HAVE BEEN CUL TIVATED WITHOUT INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE AT ALL OR AT MINI MUM 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 A N ADDITION OF ITA NO. 2331/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 7 RS.7 LAKHS BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECLARED NE T AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.25 LAKHS AND AGRICULTURE INCOME DETERM INED BY THE AO OF RS.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 PASSE D THE APPELLATE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. AGGRI EVED 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 FARMING AND UNDER PROJE CTED THE AGRICULTURE EXPENDITURE. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSES SMENT ORDER THAT IT IS THE APPELLANT WHO INFORMED THE LEARNED AO ABOUT THE MANNER OF COMPENSATION TO THE PERMANENT LABORS. THEREFORE, TH E LEARNED AO MUST APPRECIATE THE FACTS PRESENTED BY THE APPELLAN T IN THE MANNER AND EXTENT EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT AND NOT STRET CH OR MANIPULATE WITH IT UNLESS HE HAS INDEPENDENT MATERIAL TO BUTTR ESS SUCH AN APPROACH. EXCEPT THE APPELLANT'S INFORMATION AND EX PLANATION REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND MANNER AND M ETHOD OF MANAGING THE AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY, THERE IS NO INDE PENDENT EXAMINATION BY THE LEARNED AO EXCEPT RELYING ON THE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT REPORT - WHICH WAS PREPARED ON A MECHANI CAL MANNER WITHOUT APPRECIATION WITH THE APPELLANT. B. FURTHER, THE OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED AO THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT HAVE CULTIVATED WITHOUT INCURRING EXPENDITURE S HOWS LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES. THE LEARNE D AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LABOUR WITH THE APPELLANT ARE P ERMANENT LABOUR. THERE ARE TWO METHODS TO ENGAGING LABOUR VIZ., ENGA GING LABOUR ONLY FOR TASK-SPECIFIC JOBS ON DAILY-WAGE BASIS WHERE EX PENDITURE INCURRED HIS HIGH, AND ANOTHER METHOD IS THE TRADITIONAL MET HOD WHEREIN AGRICULTURIST ENGAGES LABOUR PERMANENTLY BY GIVING THEM A RESIDENCE ON THE FARM WHEREIN THEY TAKE CARE OF THE FARM ALL THROUGH THE YEAR NOTWITHSTANDING THE HARVEST. THE APPELLANT HAS PERM ANENT LABOUR WHO TAKE CARE OF THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES BY MAKING A LIVING ON THE FARM. FURTHER THE APPELLANT TOO HERSELF MONITORS THE AGRI CULTURE ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND. C. AS SUBMITTED IN THE PARA 4 SUPRA THEY ARE GIVEN INCENTIVES IN THE FORM OF ALTERNATIVE REVENUE GENERATION SOURCE ON TH E APPELLANT'S AGRICULTURE LAND AND THEREFORE THE COST OF LABOUR I S VERY MINIMAL. THE LEARNED AO FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AP PELLANT DOES NOT . INCUR EXPENDITURE ON MANURE AS SHE PRACTICES ORGANI C FARMING AND USES CATTLE-DUNG AND JEEVAMRUTHA, ETC., INSTEAD OF CHEMICALS, UREA, FERTILIZERS WHICH NOT ONLY ENTAIL MONETARY EXPENDIT URE BUT ALSO DETERIORATE THE SOIL QUALITY. EVEN THE TILLING OF T HE SOIL IS DONE BY BULLS IN TRADITIONAL MANNER. THE LEARNED AO FURTHER FAILE D TO APPRECIATE ITA NO. 2331/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 7 THAT THE APPELLANT HAS INSTALLED WATER-SPRINKLER IN THE FARM AND THEREFORE IRRIGATION TOO HAPPENS ELECTRICALLY AND T HERE IS NO LABOUR INVOLVED FOR THIS PURPOSE. FURTHER, ELECTRICITY EXP ENDITURE IS TOTALLY MINIMAL IN AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY AND SO IS WATER EXP ENDITURE. THESE ARE PRACTICES OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN AGRICULTURE AND TH E LEARNED AO OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE SAME. D. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED AO OUGHT NOT T O HAVE HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE WILL HAVE BEEN INCURRED. THE LEARNED AO RELIED ON THE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT REPORT - WHICH REPORT - CON TRARY TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO AND CIT(A) - WAS NOT CONFRONT ED TO THE APPELLANT FOR ANSWERING. HOWEVER, IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT THE REPORT OF THE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED ON TH E IDEAL-SCENARIO BASIS, WHEREIN THEY HAVE REPORTED MECHANICALLY WITH OUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ACTUAL FACTS AT ALL. IN FACT, THE HORTICULT URE DEPARTMENT DID NOT EVEN REPORT THAT THE APPELLANT CULTIVATED RAGI IN I NTER-CROPPING METHOD WITH COCONUT TREES. E. AS REGARDS THE OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED AO THA T APPELLANT DID NOT SUBMITDETAILS REGARDING AGRICULTURE INCOME EARNED, THE SAME IS BEING SUBMITTED NOW BEFORE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AS FOLLO WS - PARTICULARS ~ INCOME COCONUT (APPROXIMATELY 600 TREES AND 100 KG AVG YIELD = 60,000* 14) 8,50,000 ARECANUT (APPROXIMATELY 5800 TREES AND AVG 1.2 KG YIELD = 6960 KG @ RS.260) 18,10,000 RAGI (AVG 6 QUINTAL YIELD ON 10 ACRES = 60 QUINTALS @ 15,000/- PER QUINTAL) 90,000 TOTAL 27,50,000 EXPENDITURE TOWARDS LABOUR, CATTLE, ETC., 2,50,000 NET AGRICULTURE INCOME 25,00,000 F. THE LEARNED AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE I S A DISPUTE HERE ONLY WITHREGARDS TO THE EXPENDITURE PORTION AND NOT INCO ME PORTION AND THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT H AS ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO BUT THE AO CHOSE TO STICK T O THE THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS AND NOT THE FACTUAL EXPLANATIONS BY TH E APPELLANT. G. IN ORDER TO BUTTRESS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPE LLANT AS REGARDS THE EXPENDITURE BEING MINIMAL IN MONETARY TERMS, THE AP PELLANT IS FILING AN AFFIDAVIT SWEARING THE CONTENTS OF THIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. ITA NO. 2331/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 7 H. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT AFFIDAVIT IS ALSO AN EV IDENCE AND THE DEPARTMENT IS BOUND TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, UNLESS IT HAS A REASON TO BELIEVE ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE T HAT THE SUBMISSION IS NOT TRUE. THE APPELLANT'S STYLE OF ORGANIC AGRICULT URE AND TRADITIONAL LABOUR EMPLOYMENT IS VERY COMMON IN AGRICULTURE AND THEREFORE THE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN TURNING BLIND EYE TO THE FACTS PRESENTED BY ASSESSEE HERSELF. I. FURTHER, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDIT ION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT SUGGESTING AS TO WHAT THE SOU RCE OF INCOME IS. AN ADDITION, IF MADE, HAS TO BE DEFINITE AND NOT OB SCURE. J. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE GROSS INCOME AS DETERMI NED BY THE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF RS.25,95,540/- IS LESS T HAN THE GROSS INCOME OF RS.27,00,000/-DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT I N THE RETURN OF INCOME. (PAGE 3 OF PAPER-BOOK). K. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT UNDUE EMPHASIS IS B EING LAID ON LABOUR EXPENDITURE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT CROPS LIKE C OCONUT AND ARECANUT ARE SUCH THAT THEY DO NOT NEED ANY DAY-TO- DAY MAINTENANCE OTHER THAN WATERING AND THE APPELLANT HAS DRIP-IRRI GATION SYSTEM BECAUSE OF WHICH WATERING HAPPENS ELECTRICALLY. COC ONUT REQUIRES A PERSON TO CLIMB EVERY 45 DAYS AND CUT THE GROWN-COC ONUTS AND ARECANUT TOO REQUIRES MINIMAL DAY-TO-DAY LABOUR INV OLVEMENT, UNLIKE OTHER CROPS LIKE PADDY, WHEAT, JOWAR, ETC., WHICH A RE 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 ACTI ON OF THE LEARNED AO AND CONFIRMATION THEREOF BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS N OT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE RELIANCE OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES ON T HE REPORT OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT WHEN THE SAME IS NOT PROVID ED TO THE APPELLANT VITIATES THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E. 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 WIT H REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY STANDS TO EXPLAIN ALL THE ISS UES 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 H IS ORDER THAT THE VERY REASON FOR OBTAINING A REPORT ON THE REALISTIC INCOME WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD NO PROPER DATA ON QUANTITY OF CROPS SOLD, DATE ON WHICH SOLD, THE COST OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED, THE RATE AT WHICH SOLD ETC. HENCE, THIS CONTENTION IN ITA NO. 2331/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 7 PARA 8 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REPRODUCED ABOVE IS NOT CORRECT THAT THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION BY THE AO. IN FACT, T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY DETAIL OR EVIDENCE ABOUT ITEM PRODUCED, QUANTITY PRODUCED, SALE PRICE AND DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURR ED SUCH AS SEEDS, FERTILIZER, LABOUR CHARGES AND COST OF TRANSPORTATI ON OF PRODUCE TO THE MARKET ETC. I ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INC OME OF RS. 2.80 LAKHS AND EXEMPT INCOME (AGRICULTURE) OF RS. 25 LAKHS WHI CH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 17 LAKHS ON THE BASI S OF THE DETAILED REPORT OF THE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT REGARDING REALISTIC INC OME. BEFORE CIT(A) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAILS OR EVIDEN CE REGARDING QUANTITY OF CROPS SOLD, DATE ON WHICH SOLD, THE COST OF EXPE NDITURE INCURRED, THE RATE AT WHICH SOLD ETC. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO, NO SU CH DETAILS ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD ALONG WITH DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED. TH E ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY STATED IN SCHEDULE 4 OF STATEMENT OF INCOME THAT TH ERE IS GROSS RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 27.50 LAKHS, EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2.50 LAKHS AND NET INCOME OF RS. 25 LAKHS. UNDER THIS FACTUAL POS ITION, I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 28 TH DECEMBER, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.