Vinayak M. Namjoshi, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax,

ITA 2968/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5858 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHABANA PARVEEN
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO . 2968 /P U N/201 6 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 12 - 13 MR. VINAYAK M. NAMJOSHI, 1, SAYALI, ICS COLONY, A.B. SHIRKE ROAD, OFF GANESHKHIND ROAD, PUNE 411007 PAN : AAIPN1006D ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : N O N E REVENUE BY : MS. S HABANA PARVEEN / DATE OF HEARING : 30 - 01 - 2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 - 01 - 201 9 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, PUNE DATED 17 - 11 - 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 12 - 13. 2. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD ON 04 - 01 - 2019 FOR 30 - 01 - 2019. THE NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED AS IS EVIDENT FROM 2 ITA NO .2968/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012 - 13 THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE APPEARED TO REPRESENT THE CASE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT KEEN TO PURSUE THE AP PEAL. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES , WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. DR AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROU NDS : 1. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.330260/ - UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES: IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.330260/ - BY OBSERVING THAT APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INCOME INVOLVED WAS RELATED TO GENUINE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IN RESPECT OF SALE OF WOOD ON AGRICULTURAL LAND . 2. IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM SALE OF POMEGRANATE. A. IN CONFIRMING PART OF ADDITION TO INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM SALE OF POMEGRANATE. B. IN CONCLUDING THAT PRODUCTION OF POMEGRANATE AT 169.23 QUINTAL PER HECTARE AS AGAINST PRODUCTION OF 258.35 QUINTAL OF THE APPELLANT. C. IN RELYING UPON THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM HEAD OF DEPT. OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, MPKV, RAHURI, DIST AHMEDNAGAR FOR PRODUCTION OF POMEGRANATE AT 169.23 PER HECTARE AT PHALTAN TALUKA. D. IN NOT APPRECIATING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF PRODUCTION OF POMEGRANATE AT 258.35 QUINTAL PER HECTARE AND SUBMISSIONS TO REPLY FROM HEAD OF DEPT. OF AGRICULTURAL ECONO MICS, MPKV, RAHURI, DIST AHMEDNAGAR. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, MODIFY OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING . 4 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORD S ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS A N AGRICULTURIST AND IS ALSO HAVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAIN AND OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 30 - 08 - 2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 3 ITA NO .2968/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012 - 13 RS.67,55,001/ - . THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS SELEC TED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS , ACCORDINGLY , STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 02 - 09 - 2014. IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS.1,09,61,689/ - AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM SALE OF MILK, SALE OF WOOD AND SALE OF VARIOUS FRUITS I.E. SUGARCANE, ANAR, PULSES, ETC. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED GROSS RECEIPT FROM SALE OF CROPS AND FRUITS ETC. OF RS.1,41,17,357/ - AND CLAIMED EXPENDITURE ON CULTIVATION OF CROPS AND FRUITS RS.31,55,668/ - . THUS, THE GROSS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE WAS DECLARED AT RS.1,09,61,689/ - . IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTER ALIA REJE CTED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME FROM SALE OF WOODS RS.3,30,260/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER RESTRICTED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME FROM SALE OF POMEGRANATE. 4.1 THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME FROM SALE OF POMEGRANATE RS.90,83,480/ - . ON VERIFICATION OF DETAILS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE PLANTED POMEGRANATE IN 5 ACRES OF LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT DATA FROM DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS MPKV, RAHURI. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM MPKV THE MAXIMUM PRODUCTION OF POMEGRANATE IN THE ASSESSEE S LOCALITY IS 116.12 QUINTAL/HECTARE . W HEREAS , AS PER CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THE YIELD OF POMEGRANATE IS 285.35 QUINTAL/HECTARE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT AREA OF 7.5 ACRES BELON GING TO THE FAMILY WAS ALSO UNDER POMEGRANATE PLANTATION . THUS, THE TOTAL AREA ON WHICH POMEGRANATE WAS PLANTED IS 12.5 ACRES (5 HECTARE APPROX). ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, E VEN IF THE TOTAL AREA AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. 12.5 ACRES IS CONSIDE RED FOR PRODUCTION OF POMEGRANATE , T HE TOTAL OUTPUT AS PER MPKV WOULD BE 583.60 , WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TOTAL YIELD OF 1426.75 QUINTAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 4 ITA NO .2968/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012 - 13 IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF LEASE/AGREEMENT REJECTED ASSESSEES C LAIM OF POMEGRANATE YIELD FROM THE LAND OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS I.E. 7.5 ACRES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER RESTRICTED THE YIELD TO 232.34 QUINTALS AS AGAINST 1426.75 QUINTALS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER SETTING OFF THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.16,95,880/ - MADE ADDITION OF RS.59,08,964/ - . 4.2 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED INCOME FROM SALE OF WOOD RS.3,30,260/ - AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BASIC A GRICULTURAL OPERATIONS , THEREFORE , INCOME FROM SALE OF WOOD DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID AND OTHER ADDITIONS , THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER QUA INCOME FROM SALE OF WOOD. IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM SALE OF POMEGRANATE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PARTIALLY MODIFIED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY RE VISING THE YIELD AT 169.23 QUINTALS/HECTARE AND ALSO ACCEPTED TOTAL AREA UNDER POMEGRANATE CULTIVATION AS 12.5 ACRES (5 HECTARE) AS WAS ACCEPTED BY REVENUE IN THE SUBSEQUENT A.Y. 2 013 - 14. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DIRECTED TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE DISALLOWANCE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF MODIFICATIONS MADE . AGAINST THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. MS. SHABANA PARVEEN REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 5 ITA NO .2968/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2012 - 13 6. W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR AND HAVE PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE US CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL BY ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED O N THURSDAY, THE 31 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 31 ST JANUARY, 201 9 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 2, PUNE 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE