DCIT CC 1, MUMBAI V. GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS, MUMBAI

ITA 3820/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9338 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHA KALA CHANDA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI , !' '''# $ BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. : 3817/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06) ITA NO. : 3818/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05) ITA NO. : 3819/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07) ITA NO. : 3820/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08) ITA NO. : 3821/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09) ITA NO. : 3822/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10) ITA NO. : 3823/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11) DCIT, CC-1, R. NO. 902, 9 TH FLOOR, OLD CGO BLDG., ANNEXE, M K ROAD, MUMBAI -400 020 VS M/S GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS, 13A, SURYA KIRAN, AUGUST KRANTI MARG, GAMDEVI, MUMBAI -400 036 .: PAN: AAAFG 4069 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT ABHA KALA CHANDA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANANT N PAI /DATE OF HEARING : 11-11-2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-02-2015 ! ' # ! ' # ! ' # ! ' # O R D E R , , , , PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THE FOLLOWING APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION: ASST. YEAR CIT(A) DT. OF CIT(A) ORDER 200 5 - 0 6 36 , MUMBAI 11 .0 2 .201 3 200 4 - 0 5 36 , MUMBAI 11 .0 2 .201 3 200 4 - 0 7 36 , MUMBAI 11 .0 2 .201 3 2007 - 08 36 , MUMBAI 11.02.2013 2008 - 09 36 , MUMBAI 11.02.2013 M/S GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS ITAS 3817 TO 3823/M/2013 2 2009 - 10 36 , MUMBAI 11.02.2013 2010 - 11 36 , MUMBAI 11.02.2013 2. SINCE THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE ABOVE CASES, ON SIMILAR GOA, WE PROCEED TO PASS COMMON A ND CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ITA NO. : 3818/MUM/2013 : AY 2004-05 : 3. SINCE THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE IDENTICAL WE TAKE UP ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, ITA NO. 3818/MUM/2013 AS LEAD YEAR AND REPRODUCE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ALTH OUGH IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ENT IRE INCOME DECLARED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FOLLOWING - I. THE AO HAD STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT FOUND EITHER IN MUMBAI OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE OR IN THE FARM. THUS THE BOOK RESULTS WERE NOT RELIABLE. II. THE PARTNERSHIP DEED SHOWS THAT THE LAND BELONGING TO THE PARTNERS WAS 168.39 ACRES. HOWEVER, AS PER 7/12 EXTRACTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, SOME LAND WAS STATED TO BE OWNED BY THE EMPLOYEES SHOWN AS CULTIVATORS. INCOME FROM THIS LAND CANNOT BE SAID TO FORM PART OF THE ASSESSEE'S AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT TO THAT EFFECT. NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY INCOME FROM SUCH PORTION OF LAND SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSEE'S HANDS. III. A CHART SHOWING A PORTION OF THE LAND AS PURE GRASS LAND AND WITHOUT ANY MENTION OF FRUIT TREES WAS PROVIDED IN THE REMAND REPORT. THIS PORTION OF LAND COULD NOT BE PRODUCING ANY SUBSTANTIAL INCOME. IV. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THE ABOVE ISSUES AND WHETHER IN THE ABSENCE OF RELIABLE BOOKS, THE INCOME DECLARED SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT.' 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ABOVE MATTER MAY BE SET-ASIDE FOR CORRECT ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SWIMMING POOL, BUNGALOW, OUT HOUSE AND STABLE FOR HORSES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. CIT (A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE SELF-SE RVING STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAD ACQUIRED THE ABOVE STRUCTURES ALONG WITH PURCHASE OF LAND, M/S GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS ITAS 3817 TO 3823/M/2013 3 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. II. THE APPELLANT CRAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND AND / OR T O ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NEED BE. 4. THE FACTS ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SURVEY OPERATIONS U/S 132(1) AND 133A ON M/S POOJA EXPORTS GR OUP OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE ASSOCIATES ON 28.07.2009 . CONSEQUENT TO WHICH, NOTICE U/S 153C WAS SERVED ON TH E ASSESSEE AND AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN AT NIL INCOME. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AT TH EIR FARM AT KOLAD-BHIRA ROAD, TALUKA-ROHA, DISTT. RAIGARH. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 13-A, SURYA KIR AN, AUGUST KRANTI MARG, GAMDEVI, MUMBAI -400 036. 6. IN ITS RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME OF RS. 84,99,577/-(RS. 96,66,725 RS. 3,10,386 RS. 8,56,762, BEING THE BALANCE OF SALE PROCEEDS OF MANGOES, CHICKOO, WATERMELO N, PAPAYA, COCONUT AND VEGETABLES AT RS. 96,66,725/- AND DEDUCTED EXPENSES OF RS. 3,10,386/- AND RS. 8,56,762/-). TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 84,99,577 /- AS EXEMPT U/S 10(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE A SSESSEE WAS ALSO SUBJECTED TO SURVEY ACTION AT ITS OFFICE PREMISES AND AT THE FARM, FROM WHERE LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND ALONG WITH 7/ 12 EXTRACTS OF DIFFERENT AGRICULTURAL LAND PARCELS. IT WAS NOTED THAT NOT ONE 7/12 EXTRACT WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C, THE AO CALLED FOR THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS, WHICH WAS PRODUCED AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND EXPENSES INCURRED. THE AO THEREFOR E BROUGHT THE ENTIRE INCOME OF RS. 96,96,725/- TO TAX. M/S GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS ITAS 3817 TO 3823/M/2013 4 8. IN THE SURVEY OPERATION, THE AO ALSO FOUND THAT ON THE FARM HOUSE THERE WERE 9 HORSES IN THE STABLE AND A WELL MADE UP FARMHOUSE. THE AO FOUND THAT THE HOUSE AND HORSES WERE NOT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS AND, HE THEREFORE, ADDED AS SUM OF RS . 1,00,00,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 9. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDE RING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, OBSERVED, ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I T IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DISCLOSED AS AGRICU LTURAL INCOME & CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S 10(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE RETURN FILED BY APPELLANT DATED 19/10/2004 AND RESUBMITTED THE SAME RETURN OF INCOM E U/S 153C ON 19/01/2010. 1 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED LATEST 7/12 EXTRACT B Y LAND REVENUE AUTHORITY WHICH GIVES DETAILS OF OWNER SHIP OF LAND IN THE NAME OF PARTNERS OF FIRM AND DETAILS OF NO. AND KIND OF TREES IN AGRICULTURAL FARM DURING THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2 THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED ALL DETAILS PERTAININ G TO OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ALONG WITH DATE OF ACQUISITION. 3. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED MONTH WISE DETAILS O F SALES WITH COPIES OF ORIGINAL SALES BILLS. 4. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED PARTY WISE DETAILS O F DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES & BILLS AS SUPPORTING DOCUMENT. THE ABOVE DETAILS HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT V IDE LETTER DATED 21/11/2011 & 16/12/2011 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WITH REGARDS TO OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURE LAND: THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS IN THE NAME OF PARTNERS O F FIRM AS THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS NOT LEGAL ENTITY & THE N AME OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS ONLY A COLLECTIVE EXPRESSIO N REPRESENTS ALL THE PARTNERS CONSTITUTING THE FIRM. THUS A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY CAN BE MADE BY OR IN FAVOR OF A LEGAL OR JUDICIAL PERSON AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 5 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. WITH REGARDS TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME: IN 7/12 EXTRACT, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED ABOUT THE NO. & KIND OF TREES (SUCH AS MANGO TREES, CHICKOO TREES, CASHEW TREAS, SHISHAM, ETC.) PLANTED IN THE FARM PRIMA FAC IE SHOWS THE UTILIZATION OF SAID LAND FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE ONLY. THE CERTIFICATE FROM TEHSILDAR CERTIFYING THE NO. & KIND OF TREES SITUATED IN THE FARM IS ALSO SUBMITTE D. FURTHER APPELLANT HAS INCURRED VARIOUS EXPENDITURES SUCH AS PURCHASE OF SEEDS, FERTILIZER & PESTICIDES, PAYM ENT TO LABOURS, WATER CHARGES, FUEL CHARGES, ETC. FOR BASI C OPERATIONS LIKE PLANTATION OF NEW TREES, FERTILIZAT ION, MAINTENANCE, PURCHASE OF PLANT. FROM THE ABOVE IT I S EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CONDUCTED GENUINE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY & EARNED INCOME BY SALE OF M/S GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS ITAS 3817 TO 3823/M/2013 5 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME FILED BY APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME. 7.2 FURTHER, THE CHART SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT A GAIN CONFIRMS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS A S UNDER : 1. APEDA CERTIFICATE: THE APPELLANT WAS AWARDED A CER TIFICATE FROM APEDA - AGRICULTURE BODY, A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE WHICH CERTIFIES THAT THE MANGOES GROWN BY M/S GREENFIELD AGRO PRODUCTS ARE FIT FOR EXPORT IN THE JAPANESE AND EUROPEAN MARKETS. CHEMICAL TESTING AND ANALYSIS CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED. THE SAME WAS SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND THE LEARNED AO HAS OFFERED NO EXPLANATIONS IN THE REMAND REPORT, HENCE IT MAY BE PRESUMED THAT THERE IS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE RELATING TO THE SAME. 2. AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDY WHICH IS CREDITED DIRECTLY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT RECEIVED FROM GOVT. FROM THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA THE LEARNED AO HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED SUBSIDY OF MAHARASHTRA CERTIFYING THAT AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT. 3. ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 20032004 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 23/12/2005 SHOWING ASSESSED INCOME AS NIL NO MENTION OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) BY THE ITO WD 16(1)(1)-. 4. ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 20062007 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 17/11/2008 SHOWING ASSESSED INCOME AS 'NIL'. THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLS WITHIN THE SEARCH PERIOD NO MENTION OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) BY THE ITO WD 16(1)(1)- 5 CREDIT SALES-PARTY CONFIRMA- TIONS WERE FILED ON RECORD DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED AO IGNORED ALL THESE POSITIVE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO IS RELYING ON ONE FACT FOR DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT CULTIVATOR. 6. QUANTITATIVE DETAILS AND EXPENSES DETAILS FROM 1/4/2008- 31/3/2009 WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED AO IGNORED ALL THESE POSITIVE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO IS RELYING ON ONE FACT FOR DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT CULTIVATOR. 7. PLANTATION DETAILS AND OCCUPATION OF LAND WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED AO IGNORED ALL THESE POSITIVE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO IS RELYING ON ONE FACT FOR DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION THAT THE APPELLANT IS JUST A CULTIVATOR & NOT OWNER WHICH IS ALSO NOT FACTUALLY TRUE AS THE ULTIMATE BENEFIT ONE OWNER ONLY. 8. ORIGINAL EXPENSES BILLS AND SALE VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION THE LEARNED AO IGNORED ALL THESE POSITIVE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO IS RELYING ON ONE FACT FOR DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT CULTIVATOR. 9. PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 1/10/2001, WHEREIN IT IS THE LEARNED AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL M/S GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS ITAS 3817 TO 3823/M/2013 6 MENTIONED THAT THE PARTNERS HEREBY AGREE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO EACH PARTNER SHALL ALWAYS BE CONSTRUED AS INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY AND AT NO TIME SHALL IT BE CONSTRUED AS PARTNERSHIP PROPERTY-OWNERSHIP OF LAND IS NOT CRITERIA FOR CARRYING ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED IN THE DEED THAT ALL PLANTATIONS, TREES AND OTHER PLANTS GROWN/TO BE GROWN ON THE LAND POOLED IN FOR THE BUSINESS OF CARRYING ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES SHALL BE PROPERTY/ASSET OF THE PARTNERSHIP AS REMAND PROCEEDING THAT THE LAND IS PULLED TOGETHER FOR BETTER HARVEST AND AGRICULTURE PRODUCE. NO MENTION OF THE SAME MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT 10. PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 1/10/2001, WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE PARTNERS WILL POOL IN THE LAND BELONGING TO EACH PARTNERS AND WHICH IS TO BE USED BY THE FIRM FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, FLORICULTURE BUSINESS THE LEARNED AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS REMAND PROCEEDING THAT THE LAND IS PULLED TOGETHER FOR BETTER HARVEST AND AGRICULTURE PRODUCE. NO MENTION OF THE SAME IS MADE IN THE REMAND REPORT. 11. FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES ARE EXEMPT FROM SALES TAX THE LEARNED AO IGNORED ALL THESE POSITIVE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO IS RELYING ON ONE FACT FOR DENYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT CULTIVATOR. 12. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE LEARNED AO HAS NOT OFFERE D OR DISCUSSED THE SAID ISSUE, SO IT IS PRESUMED THAT THERE IS NO DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE LEARNED AO ACCEPTS THE SAME. THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS WAS MAINTAINED MANUALLY & WHENEVER IT WAS CALLED FOR THE SAME WAS PRODUCED THE LAND AO REQUESTED FOR SOFT COPY SO ONE IF WAS READY THEY SAID WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM. 7.3 IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS NOT PROPE R BECAUSE THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT ON THESE LANDS ARE FOUND TO BE GENUINE. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS GROUND IS DELETED. 8. GROUND III: THE LEARNED DCIT ALSO ERRED IN ASSUMING THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW, SWIMMING POOL, OUTHOUSE A ND STABLE FOR 9 HORSES AT THE FARM HOUSE ESTIMATED RS.1,00,00,000 WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF ITS UNACCOUNTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT OF BEING HE ARD. THE ESTIMATION DONE BY HIM ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT AN Y BASE. 8.1 THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM HAS PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND INCLUDING LIVING HOUSE FOR THE PU RPOSE OF TEMPORARY STAY OF WORKERS, PARTNERS VISITING FARM A ND FOR STORAGE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, WATER FEELING STRU CTURE FOR HORSES ALREADY EXISTED WHEN PARTNERS HAVE PURCHASED THE LAND. M/S GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS ITAS 3817 TO 3823/M/2013 7 THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CONSTRUCTED ANY OF THE ABOVE STRUCTURES HENCE THE QUESTION OF DISCLOSURE OF SUCH ITEM IN BALANCE SHEET DOES NOT ARISE. FURTHER AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CONSTRUCTED ANY OF THE ABOVE STRUCTURE, MERE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTRUCTION C OST OF LIVING HOUSE, STORAGE HOUSE, STABLE FOR 9 HORSES OF RS. 1,00,00,000/- IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF NAT URAL JUSTICE. HENCE CONST OF CONSTRUCTION CANNOT BE CONS IDERED AS INCOME FROM UNACCOUNTED UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT TH E AO HAS NOT ENQUIRED PROPERLY BEFORE ARRIVING ON CONCLU SION FOR ESTIMATING 1,00,00,000/- AS CONSTRUCTION COST. IN HIS REMAND REPORT ALSO, THE AO IS SILENT ON THIS POINT. SUCH ADHOC ESTIMATION DOES NOT HOLD GOOD IN THE EYES OF LAW, HENCE THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS COUNT IS HEREBY DEL ETED. 10. THE CIT(A), THUS DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS AS MADE BY THE AO. 11. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 12. BEFORE US, THE DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FOUND AT THE TIME O F SURVEY OPERATIONS. THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE 7/12 EXTRA CT SPECIFIES ASSESSEES OWNERSHIP OF LAND PARCELS. 13. IN ANY CASE, THE LAND RECORDS SHOWED THAT NO FRUIT OR VEGETABLES WERE GROWN THERE AND ACTUALLY THERE WERE ONLY GRASS AND BARREN LAND. THE OTHER THING WHAT THE CIT(A) HELD ABO UT THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND PARCELS WAS THAT THE LAND PARCELS WERE, IN THE NAMES OF PARTNERS, WHICH AS SUCH DID NOT PROVE ANYTHING. 14. THE DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE C IT(A) WITH REGARD TO ADDITION U/S 69 WAS COMPLETELY BIASED. 15. THE AR ON THE OTHER HAND DEFENDED THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD CALLED FOR REMAND REPO RT, WHICH IN ITSELF WAS REPETITIVE AND INCONSEQUENTIAL. THE AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS WERE PROVIDED TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WHICH INCLUDED 7/12 EXTRACTS ETC. M/S GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS ITAS 3817 TO 3823/M/2013 8 16. THE AR ALSO DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN REGAR D TO DELETION OF ADDITION MADE U/S 69 AT RS. 1,00,00,000/-, THAT THE FARM HOUSE WAS PURCHASED WITH ALREADY EXISTING HOUSE, ETC . INCLUDING THE STABLE AND NINE HORSES. 17. THE AR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) DID NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY AND WAS CORRECT AND DESER VES TO BE SUSTAINED. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS AND HAVE PERUSED TH E MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. EXCEPT FOR THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN HE MENTIONS ABOUT THE PARTNERS, NOWHERE DO WE FIND AS TO W HAT IS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM. WE ALSO DO NOT FIND FROM ANY RE CORD AS TO WHICH PARTNER OF THE FIRM OWNED HOW MUCH LAND. WE ALSO DO NOT FIND AS TO WHEN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASE D AND WHAT WAS THERE IN THE SALE AGREEMENT. ALL THESE DOCUMENT S ARE IMPORTANT AND PRIMARY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO PROCEED. WE FIND REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE INDEPENDENTLY PROCEEDED TO PASS THE ORDERS WITHOUT REFERENCE AND ELA BORATION OF THESE PRIMARY FACTS. 19. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, WE DEEM IT FIT THAT THE ORD ERS OF BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BE SET ASIDE AND DIRECT TH E AO TO PASS FRESH ORDER AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE MA TERIAL AS MENTIONED HERE ABOVE. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE A O SHALL ACCORD REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUNDS AS RAISED ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. M/S GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS ITAS 3817 TO 3823/M/2013 9 ITA NO. : 3817/MUM/2013 : AY 2005-06 : 22. THE ONLY ISSUE PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS INVOLVED IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE DEA LT WITH AND DECIDED HEREINABOVE OF OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 3818/MUM/2013 FOR AY 2004-05, WHILE RESOLVING THE ISSUE IN THE GROUND, VIDE PARAS 3 TO 7 & 17 TO 21 OF OUR ORDER, ULTIMATELY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO FOLLOW SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN AT PARA 18 OF OUR ORDER, ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ISSUE PER SE INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 23. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL AS FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. : 3819/MUM/2013 : AY 2006-07 : 24. THE ONLY ISSUE PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS INVOLVED IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE DEA LT WITH AND DECIDED HEREINABOVE OF OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 3818/MUM/2013 FOR AY 2004-05, WHILE RESOLVING THE ISSUE IN THE GROUND, VIDE PARAS 3 TO 7 & 17 TO 21 OF OUR ORDER, ULTIMATELY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO FOLLOW SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN AT PARA 18 OF OUR ORDER, ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ISSUE PER SE INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 25. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL AS FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. : 3820/MUM/2013 : AY 2007-08 : 26. THE ONLY ISSUE PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS INVOLVED IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE DEA LT WITH AND DECIDED HEREINABOVE OF OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 3818/MUM/2013 FOR AY 2004-05, WHILE RESOLVING THE ISSUE IN THE GROUND, VIDE PARAS 3 TO 7 & 17 TO 21 OF OUR ORDER, ULTIMATELY, M/S GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS ITAS 3817 TO 3823/M/2013 10 WE DIRECT THE AO TO FOLLOW SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN AT PARA 1 8 OF OUR ORDER, ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ISSUE PER SE INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 27. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL AS FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. : 3821/MUM/2013 : AY 2008-09 : 28. THE ONLY ISSUE PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS INVOLVED IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE DEA LT WITH AND DECIDED HEREINABOVE OF OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 3818/MUM/2013 FOR AY 2004-05, WHILE RESOLVING THE ISSUE IN THE GROUND, VIDE PARAS 3 TO 7 & 17 TO 21 OF OUR ORDER, ULTIMATELY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO FOLLOW SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN AT PARA 1 8 OF OUR ORDER, ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ISSUE PER SE INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 29. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL AS FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. : 3822/MUM/2013 : AY 2009-10 : 30. THE ONLY ISSUE PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS INVOLVED IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE DEA LT WITH AND DECIDED HEREINABOVE OF OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 3818/MUM/2013 FOR AY 2004-05, WHILE RESOLVING THE ISSUE IN THE GROUND, VIDE PARAS 3 TO 7 & 17 TO 21 OF OUR ORDER, ULTIMATELY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO FOLLOW SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN AT PARA 1 8 OF OUR ORDER, ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ISSUE PER SE INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 31. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL AS FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. M/S GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS ITAS 3817 TO 3823/M/2013 11 ITA NO. : 3823/MUM/2013 : AY 2010-11 : 32. THE ONLY ISSUE PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS INVOLVED IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE DEA LT WITH AND DECIDED HEREINABOVE OF OUR ORDER IN ITA NO. 3818/MUM/2013 FOR AY 2004-05, WHILE RESOLVING THE ISSUE IN THE GROUND, VIDE PARAS 3 TO 7 & 17 TO 21 OF OUR ORDER, ULTIMATELY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO FOLLOW SPECIFIC DIRECTION GIVEN AT PARA 1 8 OF OUR ORDER, ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ISSUE PER SE INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 33. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL AS FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. TO SUM-UP: ALL THE ITA APPEALS AS FILED BY THE REVENUE TABULATED BELO W ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO AY ITA NO 3817/M/2013 2005-06 ITA NO 3818/M/2013 2004-05 ITA NO 3819/M/2013 2006-07 ITA NO 3820/M/2013 2007-08 ITA NO 3821/M/2013 2008-09 ITA NO 3822/M/2013 2009-10 ITA NO 3823/M/2013 2010-11 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- ' ' ' ' $ $ $ $ ' ' ' ' (R C SHARMA) (VIVEK VARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 %/ COPY TO:- M/S GREEN FIELD AGRO PRODUCTS ITAS 3817 TO 3823/M/2013 12 1) / THE APPELLANT. 2) / THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT(A)-36, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT- CENTRAL -I, MUMBAI. 5) / THE D.R. G BENCH, MUMBAI. COPY TO GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI * *CHAVAN, SR.PS