Madan Mohan Singh, Ambala V. ITO, Ambala

ITA 459/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3814 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 80C; 260A; 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 459/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI MADAN MOHAN SINGH, VS THE ITO, VILLAGE & P.O. GHEL, WARD NO. 3, DISTT. AMBALA. AMBALA. PAN: BLDPS9168L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ROHIT GOEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.11.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2 GURGAON DATED 18.02.201 6 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION O F RS. 18 LACS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OUT OF AGRICULTURE LAND INCOME HOLDING THE SAME AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2,457/- WAS FILED ON 29/03/2013. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 2 23,21,222/-DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RUPEES) AGRICULTURAL INCOME (FARM-J) SALE OF WHEAT PADDY ET C. 7,44,603.35 AGRICULTURAL INCOME (SALE OF SAFEDA TREE) 20,00,000.00 TOTAL (RS.) 27,44,603.35 EXPENSES 30% IN RESPECT OF WHEAT AND PADDY 2,23,381.01 EXPENSES 1 0% IN RESPECT OF SAFEDA TREES 2,00,000.00 AGGREGATE INCOME 2,321,222.35 2(I) THE AO VERIFIED THE DOCUMENT REGARDING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF PADDY AND WHEAT AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,21,222/- AND ACCEPTED THE SAME. AS REGARDS, AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS, 18,00 ,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF 1631 SAFEDA TREES, THE AO ASK ED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COPIES OF JAMABANDI AND GIRDAWA RI. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DOCUMENT. THE AO NOTED THAT IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE GIRDAWARI TH AT SAFEDA TREES WERE EVER PLANTED BY THE ASSESSEE AT T HE LAND OWNED BY HIM. THE AO POINTED OUT THESE FACTS TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED THE APPELLANT TO GIVE KHASRA WIS E DETAILS OF CULTIVATION OF CROPS. THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO FURNISH THIS INFORMATION BUT CLAIMED THAT SAFEDA TR EES HAD BEEN PLANTED ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND. THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT TREES PLANTED ON THE BOUNDARY ARE NO T RECORDED IN THE GIRDAWARI. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT SAFEDA TREES WERE PLANTED AT A DISTANCE OF SIX FEET FROM EACH OTHER ON THE BOUNDARY OF LAND MARKED AS KHASRA NO. 51, 20 & 11. IN THE LAND MARKED AT KHASRA NO. 20 & 11 SAFEDA TREES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PLANTED IN A SINGLE 3 ROW WHEREAS IN KHASRA NO. 51, TREES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PLANTED IN DOUBLE RAW. 3. THE AO CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS BUT WAS NOT SATISFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT TH AT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, IF THE SAFEDA TREES WERE P LANTED IN DOUBLE RAW OF KHASRA NO. 51 THEN THE INNER LINE OF TREE MUST HAVE FALLEN WITHIN THE FIELDS ITSELF AND THERE FORE THESE MUST HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE GIRDAWARI. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FURTHER REFERRED TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM TH AT 1631 HAD BEEN SOLD AND WERE PLANTED ON THE BOUNDARY AND OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL AREA OF 16.5 ACRES COMPRISI NG OF THESE THREE KHASRA COULD NOT HAVE CIRCUMFERENCE OF 9940 FEET ON WHICH THE TREES COULD HAVE BEEN PLANTED. THE AO COMPUTED THE CIRCUMFERENCE AT 5744 FEET AS AGAINST 9940 FEET CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3(I) THE AO FURTHER, REFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE'S C LAIM THAT SAFEDA TREES HAD BEEN SOLD TO SH. TARWAR AND SH. SA RWAN KUMAR AND POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE SALE PRICE WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 TO BOTH THESE PERSONS FOR VERIFYING THE GENUINE NESS OF TRANSACTION AND RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS . 20,00,000/-. SUMMONS ISSUED TO SH. TARWAR WAS RECE IVED BACK WITH REMARKS WRONG ADDRESS. THERE WAS NO COMPL IANCE IN OTHER CASE ALSO. THE AO ACCORDINGLY ASKED THE AS SESSEE TO PRODUCE BOTH THESE PERSONS FOR EXAMINATION TO VE RIFY THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION OF THE CASH RECEIPT. IN- SPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROD UCE 4 THESE PERSONS AND VIDE REPLY DATED 16/10/014 SUBMIT TED THAT THE PERSONS TO WHOM SAFEDA TREES HAD BEEN SOLD COULD NOT BE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION AS HE WAS NOT A LO CAL RESIDENT. THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INCOME OF RS. 18,00,000/- DEC LARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS EARNED BY HIM THROUGH SALE OF TREES AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE SAME AS HIS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READS AS UND ER : ' ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 2457, UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BESIDES THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AGR ICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 23,12,221/- HAS BEEN DECLARED. THE ASSESSEE'S CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS. AS AGAINST RETU RNED INCOME OF RS. 2457, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AT EXORBITANT AMOUN T OF TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 17,76,500/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AGRICULT URAL INCOME OUT OF WHICH RS. 18,00,000.00 HAS BEEN ADDED BACK ON ACCOU NT OF SALE OF SAFEDA TREES IN THE TAXABLE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OTHER THAN AGRICULTURIST LEARNED A. O'S OBSERVATION VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2 014 AT PAGE 4 IS AS UNDER:- 'THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PLANTED THE SAFED A TREES ON LAND KHASRA NO. 51 IN THE DOUBLE ROW, THEN THE INNER LINE OF TR EES MUST HAVE FALLEN WITHIN THE FIELD ITSELF AND THEREFORE, THESE TREES WOULD MUST HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE GIRDAWARI. IT IS BECAUSE THE TREES FALLING WITHIN OUTER LINE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN PLANTED, EXACTLY AT THE BOUNDAR Y (IN INCHES) AND MUST HAVE BEEN INSIDE FROM THE BOUNDARY. FURTHER, I F TREES OF INNER LINE ARE PLANTED AT THE DISTANCES OF SIX FEETS, THE INNE R LINE OF TREES CLEARLY FALLS WITH IN THE FIELD, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE GIRDAWARI. 5 THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS ARE NOT CONSID ERED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT AND IT IS ONLY AN AFTER THOUGHT THAT SAFEDA TREES WERE ACTUALLY PLANTED ON BOUNDARY OF THE LAND, WHICH ARE NOT RECO RDED BY THE LAND REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE GIRDAWARI'. IN THIS REGARD ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS ARE AS UNDER: - LEARNED A. O HAS ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION & EXEM PTIONS STATED THAT IN CASE IF SAFEDA TREES ARE PLANTED IN DOUBLE ROWS AT THE DISTANCE OF SIX FEETS, IT MUST HAVE FALLEN WITHIN THE FIELDS & THE TREES F ALLING WITHIN OUTER LINE OF BOUNDARY SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE GIRDAW ARI, WHICH IS INCORRECT. DISTANCE BETWEEN 1 TO 3 & 2 TO 4 IS SIX FEET & DIST ANCE BETWEEN 1 TO 2 & 2 TO 3 IS THREE FEET. IF THE TREES ARE PLANTED IN ABOVE PATTERN THERE SHA LL BE DISTANCE OF SIX FEET IN PARTICULAR ROW AND NO TREE WILL BE IN THE FIELD. THUS A.O.'S PRESUMPTION & ASSUMPTION IS NOT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARD TO GARDAWARI OF THE DOUBLE PLANTATION ON THE OUTER BOUNDARIES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN RECORDED BY THE PATWARI IN THE GARDAWARI, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF PLANTATI ON, TWO ROWS OF PLANTS CAN EASILY BE PLANTED ON BOUNDARIES AND REVENUE AUTHORI TY SHALL NOT RECORD THE PLANTATION AT THE TIME OF GARDWARI DUE TO THE REASO N THAT SAFEDA IS PLANTED ONLY ON THE BOUNDARIES AND NOT IN THE FIELD AND IN COMING YEARS THE PRACTICE GOES OF NOT RECORDING THE TREES. A CERTIFICATE FROM HALKA PATWARI STATING THAT SAFED A PLANTED ON BOUNDARIES OF THE FIELD ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE GARDAWARI( REV ENUE RECORD) HAS BEEN FURNISHED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS A. O'S VERSION IS WRONG AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. LEARNED A. O'S OBSERVATIONS VIDE PAGE 4 OF ORDER AR E AS UNDER:- 6 ' THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DATED 30.12.2014 HAS CLAI MED THAT 1631 SAFEDA TREES, WHICH HAVE BEEN SOLD, WERE PLANTED ON BOUNDA RIES OF THREE FIELDS INVOLVING TOTAL AREA 16.5 ACRES AND CIRCUMFERENCE O F 9940 FEET, AS PER DETAILS HEREUNDER : KHASRA NO. BOUNDARIES/CIRCUMFERENCE KHASRA NO. 51 4020 FEET KHASRA NO. 20 4400 FEET KHASRA NO. 11 1520 FEET THE ASSESSEE'S THIS SUBMISSION IS ALSO CONTRADICTOR Y IN ITSELF AS FIELDS INVOLVING TOTAL AREA OF 16.5 ACRES, IN ANY WAY CANNOT HAVE CI RCUMFERENCE OF 9940 FEETS.' THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION IS AS UNDER:- A.O ASSUMPTION THAT TOTAL AREA OF 16.5 ACRE IN ANY WAY CANNOT HAVE CIRCUMFERENCE OF 9940 FEETS WHICH IS WRONG AND ILLOGICAL ON THE BASI S OF WRONG ARITHMETIC CALCULATIONS, WHICH IS EXPLAINED WITH THE HELP OF ATTACHED MAPS OF EACH KHASRA STATED ABOVE. BASIS OF CALCULATION OF LEARNED A. O.:- KHASRA NO. CIRCUMFERENCE SINGLE LINE A ADDITIONAL CIRCUMFERE NCE (FOR DOUBLE LINE) B CIRCUMFERENCE AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE C=A+B AREA OF FIELD ONE SIDE OF FIELD CIRCUMFERENCE 51 2540FTS 1480FT (60%) 4020FTS. 6.67 ACRE (290550 SQ FEET) 540FT 2160FT 20 3780FTS 620FT 4400FTS. 7.30 ACRE (318000 SQ FEET) 564FT 2256FT 11 1520FTS 0 1520FTS. 2.53 ACRE (110210 SQ FEET) 332FT 1328FT TOTAL 7840FT. 2100FT. 9940FT. 16.5 ACRE 1436FT 5744FT NOTE: IN THE ABOVE TABLE WHILE CALCULATING THE AREA OF ON ACRE, LEARNED A. O. HAS TAKEN LENGTH OF OUTER BOUNDARY AS 198 FTS AND BREADTH AS 220 FTS WHICH COMES TO:- 7 198FT *220FT=43560 SQ FEETS PER ACRE. FOR 6.67 ACRES:- 43 560*6.67ACRES- 290550 SQ FEETS THIS AREA HAS BEEN THEN USED TO CALCULATE ONE SIDE OF FIELD IN FEETS BY SQUARE ROOTING, THUS PRESUMING THE FIELD AS SQUARE WHICH IS WRONG A ND RESULTS OF WHICH ARE MISLEADING. ONE ACRE'S CIRCUMFERENCE ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE TABL E:- ONE SIDE OF TOTAL ACRES ONE SIDE OF ONE ACRE TO TAL CIRCUMFERENCE TOTAL 16.5 ACRES PER ACRE 1436 16.5 1436/16.5=87 FTS 87*4=348 FT S. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, LEARNED A. O. 'S CALCULATIONS ARE NOT ONLY WRONG BUT THE RESULT DERIVED OUT OF IT ARE MISLEADING. LEARNED A.O'S OBSERVATIONS VIDE PAGE 5 OF ORDER ARE AS UNDER:- ' THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO SOLD THESE SAFEDA TRE ES TO SH. TARWAR, S/O SH. TANU HUSAN, VILL. MIRJAPUR POLL, DISTT. SAHARANPUR(U.P) AND SH. SARWAN KUMAR, S/O SH. RAJPAL, VILL. MIRGARH, TEHSIL BEHAT, DISTT. SAHARANPUR(U.P). HOWE VER, DESPITE ALLOWING NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROD UCE BOTH THE PERSONS FOR VERIFICATION AND EXAMINING. HE VIDE REPLY DATED 16.10.2014 CATEG ORICALLY DENIED THAT PERSONS TO WHOM SAFEDA HAS BEEN SOLD CANNOT BE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION AS HE WAS NOT A LOCAL RESIDENT.' THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION IS AS UNDER:- THE PURCHASER OF THE SAFEDA TREES ARE A GROUP OF LA BORERS OF A PARTICULAR AREA WHO JOINS HANDS FOR DOING COLLECTIVE LABOUR AND ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR STANDING TREES. THEY COLLECTIVELY CUT IT DOWN AND CARRY THE SAME FOR SAL ES. THEY USE TO TAKE THE FUNDS FROM THE COMMISSION AGENTS TO WHOM THEY SELL THE TIMBER WOOD. AFTER SELLING IT OUT THEY USE TO DISTRIBUTE THE PROFIT WHICH IS INFACT A LABOUR WHIC H HAS COME IN THEIR SHARE. 8 ONCE WE HAVE SOLD THE STANDING TREES AND GET THE PA YMENT WE ARE LEAST BOTHERED ABOUT THEIR FURTHER WORKING AND DISPOSAL. WE COULD NOT FO RCE THEM TO COME FOR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES , HOWEVER WE COUL D PROCURE THE AFFIDAVITS FROM THEM. ASSESSEE IS A AGRICULTURIST AND DO NOT HAVE ANY O THER SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT BANK INTEREST. ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AT RS. 2457 .00 INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT BASIC EXEMPTION LIMIT WAS RS. 1,80,000.00PLUS SAVIN GS U/S 80C WHICH WAS RS. 25509.00. THUS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT KEEN TO SHOW EXT RA INCOME. THUS THE QUESTION OF SHOWING INCOME FROM SALE OF SAFEDA TREE S WITHOUT HAVING ACTUAL INCOME DOES NOT ARISES. AN AFFIDAVIT FROM NUMBERDAR OF THE VILLAGE GHEL IS ATTACHED HEREWITH STATING THAT THERE WAS PLANTATION OF SAFEDA TREES D URING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. AN AFFIDAVIT FROM NEIGHBORS OF THE DIFFERENT PIECES OF THE LAND IS ATTACHED HEREWITH STATING THAT THERE WAS PLANTATION WHICH WA S SOLD DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE TOTAL AREA OF THE PLANTATION HAS DULY BEEN EVID ENCED BY THE WAYS OF KHASRA WISE MAPS ATTACHED WITH THE SUBMISISON. THE LEARNED A.O'S DECISION IS BASED ON FOLLOWING PO INTS :- 1. THAT PLANTATION COULD NOT BE ON BOUNDARIES IF IT IS IN TWO ROWS (DOUBLE LINE), WHICH IS WRONG AND HAS BEEN PROVED WITH THE HELP OF FIGURE 1, WHICH IS ACTUAL AND AS PER NORMAL PRACTICE OF PLANTATION. 2. THAT THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF KHASRA NO. 51,20,11 COULD NOT BE 9940FTS, WHICH IS WRONG AND BASED ON ILLOGICAL ARITHMETICAL CALCULATI ONS AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS REQUESTED TO KINDLY DEL ETE THE ADDITION WHICH IS WRONG, UNJUSTIFIED AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ' 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 3.6 AND 4 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 3.6 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT'S SU BMISSIONS. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AS ALSO FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE IS NO DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE OF 9 PLANTATION OF SAFEDA TREES BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE GIRDAWARI FILED BY THE APPEL LANT DOES NOT SHOW ANY SAFEDA TREE HAVING BEEN GROWN. IN THESE CIRCUMS TANCES THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM IS BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDEN CE. IN THIS REGARD, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THRO UGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALSO THAT HE HAD EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOM E OF RS. 18 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SAFEDA TREES. THE AO HAS CLEARLY POINTED OUT THAT AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, IF THE TREES WERE GROWN I N DOUBLE RAW IN A PART OF KHASRA NO. 51 THEN THE INNER RAW WOULD HAVE BEEN A PART OF THE GIRDAWARI REPORT. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS DISCREPANCY POINTED OUT BY THE AO. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED T O PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEED AMOUNTING TO RS. 20 LAKHS. ALTHOUGH, THE SAFEDA TREES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD TO TWO PERSONS NAMELY SH. TARWAR AND SH. SARWAN KUMAR, BOTH OF SAHARANPUR, TH ESE PERSONS FAILED TO APPEAR IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE AO (IN ONE CASE, EVEN THE ADDRESS AS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT WAS WRONG ADDR ESS) NOR WERE THEY PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM I N-SPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CLAIM OF CASH RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SAFEDA TREES REMAINS UNVERIFIED. THE ONU S LIES ON THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF AGRICU LTURAL INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS. IN THES E CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SAFEDA TREES IS MERE SELF SERVING STATEMENT. THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 6. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT AS SESSEE IS HOLDING 51.5 ACRES OF LAND WHICH IS NOT IN DISPU TE. COPIES OF LAND HOLDINGS ARE FILED AT PAGES 6 TO 8 A ND COPIES OF JAMABANDI OF 51.5 ACRE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WERE FILED AT PB-12 TO 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK. PB-11 IS STATEMENT OF ASSESSABLE INCOME SHOWING ASSESSEE HAS SMALL SAVING INTEREST OF RS. 2457/-. THE ASSESSEE IS AGRICULTURI ST AND DO NOT HAVE ANY SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT BANK INTEREST AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE STATEMENT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME 10 IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2012-13 HA S BEEN FILED ALONGWITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING OF T HE RETURN OF INCOME FOR EARLIER YEARS. HE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT AGRICULTURE INCOMES EARNED BY ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEE N DISPUTED. THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTIFICATE OF HALKA PATWARI/TEHSILDAR CONFIRMING THAT SAFEDA TREED PLAN TED ON BOUNDARIES OF FIELDS ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE GIRDAWARI/REVENUE RECORD, THEREFORE, COPY OF THE SA ME IS FILED AT PAGE 38-39 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH HAVE AL SO NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING PLANTATION OF SAFEDA TREES AT TH E DISTANCE OF 6 FEET IN DOUBLE ROW AND CIRCUMFERENCE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, HAVE ALSO N OT BEEN DISPUTED AND REBUTTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. TH E CONFIRMATION OF SALE OF SAFEDA TREES ARE FILED AT P AGE 30 TO 37 OF THE PAPER BOOK. MERELY BECAUSE THE PURCHASER S OF THE SAFEDA TREES DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AFTER CONSIDERABLE LAPSE, IS NO GROUND TO REJECT CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT OF NUMBARDAR OF THE VILLAGE SHRI RAM PRASHAD AND AFFID AVITS OF NEIGHBOURERS SHRI YASHPAL SINGH, SHRI BACHITTAR SINGH AND SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) , COPIES OF WHICH ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE S 40 TO 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK ON WHICH NO INQUIRY HAVE BEEN HELD. THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE MERELY BA SED ON ASSUMPTION WITHOUT ANY BASIS. SINCE ASSESSEE HAS O NLY AGRICULTURE INCOME AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECO RD TO SHOW ANY VESTED INTEREST OR MOTIVE WITH THE ASSESSE E TO 11 DECLARE AGRICULTURE INCOME HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL A MOUNT, THEREFORE, ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. IN SUPP ORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, CHANDIGARH -2 V KARTAR SINGH, KARTA REPORTED IN 316 ITR 160. 6(I) ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING SUFFICIENT LAND HOL DING TO EARN AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED J-F ORM FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW IN ACCEPTING THE AGRICULTURE I NCOME. IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT HE HAS DECLAR ED AGRICULTURE INCOME IN PAST ALSO. IT IS, THEREFORE, PROVED THAT ASSESSEE IS BEING ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY YIELDING AGRICULTURE INCOME IN PAST AS WELL AS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO SALE OF SAFEDA TREES BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN SOWN ON BOUNDARIES OF THE AGRICULTURE FIELD. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW REJECTED THE CLAIM OF SALE OF SAF EDA TREES BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IN THE GIRDAWARI, THE SAFED A TREES PLANTED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, FILED CERTIFICATE OF THE CONCERN ED HALKA PATWARI CONFIRMING THAT SAFEDA PLANTED ON BOUNDARY OF THE FIELD, ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE GIRDAWARI. CERTIFIC ATE OF TEHSILDAR IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK WHICH SUPPORTS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHEN SAFEDA TREES WERE 12 SOWN ON THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE FIELD, THERE WAS N O REQUIREMENT TO RECORD PLANTATION OF SAFEDA TREES IN THE GIRDAWARI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INSTEAD OF BELIE VING THE CERTIFICATE OF THE CONCERNED HALKA PATWARI OR MAKIN G THOROUGH INQUIRY INTO THE MATTER, SUMMARILY REJECTE D THE ABOVE CERTIFICATE OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WITHOU T ANY VALID REASON OR JUSTIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO E XPLAINED THAT SAFEDA TREES WERE PLANTED IN DOUBLE ROW AT A D ISTANCE AND ALSO GIVEN THE DETAILS OF CIRCUMFERENCE AS CONS IDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT IN THE CALCULATION AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, NO DEFECTS HAVE BEEN P OINTED OUT BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND EVEN THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW HAVE NOT MADE ANY INVESTIGATION INTO THIS ASPECT WH ETHER THE DETAILS GIVEN BY ASSESSEE WERE CORRECT AS PER R ECORD. 7(I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A CALCULATION OF HIMSELF WITH REGARD TO PLANTING OF SAFEDA TREES ON INNER AND OUTER LINE BUT REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE WITHOUT ANY VALID REASONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, MERELY, ON PRESUMPTION CONSIDERED THAT SAFEDA TREES PLANTED IN DOUBLE ROW WOULD MAKE THAT INNER LINE TREE MUST HAV E FALLEN WITHIN THE FIELD, THEREFORE, SUCH FACTS SHOU LD BE RECORDED IN THE GIRDAWARI. THERE WAS NO BASIS OR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECORD S UCH A FINDING. IT IS MERELY PRESUMPTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TREES WOULD BE FALLING IN THE AGRICULTURE FIEL D. IF ASSESSING OFFICER, HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE COULD HAVE VERIFY THIS FACT FROM THE R EVENUE DEPTT. OR COULD MAKE INQUIRIES FROM THE CONCERNED R EVENUE 13 OFFICERS, BUT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT DO SO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE BECAUSE THE PERSONS WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE SAFEDA T REES, HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, FIL ED CONFIRMATION OF THE SALE OF SAFEDA TREES AND WRITTE N AGREEMENT WITH THE PURCHASERS, AND IF AT A LATER ST AGE, THE PURCHASER DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAM PRASHAD, NUMBARDAR OF THE VILLAGE WHO HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THA T ASSESSEE HAS SOWN SAFEDA TREES ON THE BOUNDARY OF A BOUT 18 ACRES OF LAND AND OUT OF WHICH, SOME OF THE AREA WAS SOWN IN DOUBLE ROW. THIS FACT IS CONFIRMED BY THRE E NEIGHBOURERS IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS OF THE SAME VILLAG E WHO HAVE LAND ADJOINING TO THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE. T HESE AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THER EFORE, IF LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS HAVING ANY DOUBT ON THE SAME, HE C OULD HAVE REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER A T APPELLATE STAGE FOR GETTING THE FACTS CONFIRMED FRO M THE NEIGHBOURERS AND NUMBARDAR OF THE VILLAGE. THEREFO RE, SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD NOT BE ADVERSE IN NATURE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 7(II) THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPO N DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS JARNAIL SINGH (KARTA) (SUPRA) IN WHICH IT WA S HELD AS 14 UNDER : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL UNDER SEC TION 260A OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' THE ACT ' ), AGAINST THE ORDER DATED AUGUST 21, 2007, PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH-B, IN I. T. A. NO. 963/CHANDI/2006 AND HAS SO UGHT TO RAISE THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW : ' WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS P ERVERSE, BEING BASED ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS) HAVE BEEN IGNORED WITHOUT ANY COGENT MATE RIAL ?' THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 7, 50,000 FROM CULTIVATION OF 36 ACRES OF OWN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND 6 ACRES OF LE ASED AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID DECLARATION, THE ASSESSEE PRODU CED REVENUE RECORD, J- FORMS AND CLAIMED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NET OF EXPENSES AT 25 PER CENT. HOWEVER, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO DETERMINED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 5,52,561 HOLDING THAT THE YIELD DECLARED WAS HI GH. THE REMAINING INCOME OF RS. 1,97,439 WAS TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES, VIDE ORDER DATED JANUARY 16, 2006. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, VIDE HI S ORDER DATED OCTOBER 24, 2006. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), AN APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS ALLOWED, VIDE ORDER DATED AUGUST 21, 2007 . WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS AN AGRICULTURIST, HAS PRODUCED EVIDENCE ON RECORD, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAI M AND THE INCOME DECLARED BY HIM ON ESTIMATE BASIS IS BONA FIDE. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD ARE REPRODUCED : 15 ' I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY . FIRSTLY, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE PAST ALSO. THE FACTUM OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY YIELDING AGRICULTURAL INCOM E IN THE PAST AS WELL AS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT IN DI SPUTE. THE DISPUTE ESSENTIALLY REVOLVES AROUND THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULT URAL INCOME DECLARED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED TO HAVE ESTIMATED HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY REDUCING FROM THE GROSS SALE REALISATION THE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 25 PER CE NT. THIS MANNER OF DECLARING AGRICULTURAL INCOME ITSELF SHOWS THAT IT HAS BEEN DECLARED ON ESTIMATE BASIS. NOW, THE ISSUE IS AS TO WHETHER THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE CONSTRUED AS REASONABLE CONSIDE RING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT, SIZE OF LAND H OLDINGS, PAST HISTORY, ETC. IN THIS CONTEXT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN THAT IT HAD 36 ACRES OF LAND UNDER CULTIVATION, PAR TLY OWNED BY HIM AND PARTLY BELONGING TO HIS BROTHER IN ADDITION TO 6 AC RES OF LAND TAKEN ON LEASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLE A OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE LEASED LAND FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED. IN SO FAR AS THE NON-ACCEPTANCE OF T HE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER REFERRED TO A JOURNAL OF HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY TO DEDUC E AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE PER ACRE YIELD FROM THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THAT BASIS, HE HELD THAT THE YIELD DECLARED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS HIGH. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS MANIFESTED BY THE REASON THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT VERIFIABLE. THIS AS PECT IS JUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, THE APPROACH ADOPTED THEREAFTER BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER OF NOT GOING BY THE MATERIAL ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE I N SUPPORT OF THE ESTIMATE IS ALSO WRONG FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS NO FINDING MUCH LESS A WHISPER THAT THE MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPO N BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LACKING IN CREDIBILITY. IN FACT, THE CERTIFICAT E OF AVERAGE INCOME PER ACRE OF LAND OBTAINED FROM VILLAGE ` PATWARI' WHICH INDICATES AN INCOME LEVEL OF RS.36,000 PER ACRE, CANNOT BE BRUSH ED ASIDE. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE ` J-FORMS' EVI DENCING SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE BUT SUBJECTING THE SAME TO MIC ROSCOPIC SCRUTINY TO CULL OUT THE YIELD, ETC., IS AN UNJUSTIFIED EXER CISE. WHAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO ESSENTIALLY DO WAS TO ONLY VERIFY TH E ESTIMATES MADE BY 16 THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT, THERE IS ALWAYS AN ELEMENT OF SUBJECTIVITY IN ESTIMATION. UNLESS IT CAN BE MADE OUT THAT THE ESTI MATE IS ON A WILD BASIS OR IS TOTALLY LACKING IN BONA FIDES ONLY THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN SUBSTITUTING HIS ESTIMATES IN THE PLACE OF ESTIMATION DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO SUCH E XERCISE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER EMERGING IN THE INSTANT CA SE. HAVING REGARD TO THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IN MY VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FO R HAVING DERIVED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 7,50,000 FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. MOREOVER, IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, THE AS SESSEE HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.7,00,000. NO DOU BT, THE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT YET THE TREND OF INCOME DECLARED CANNOT BE LOST SIGHT OF WHILE CONSIDERING THE EFFICACY OF INCOME DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW AN Y VESTED INTEREST OR MOTIVE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO DECLARE AGRICULTURE INCOME HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL AMOUNT. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT THE COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT DO NOT SHOW ANY INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED HIS PLEA BY FILING AN AFFIDA VIT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE INCOME EARNED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS SPENT ON AGRICULTURE INPUTS OR HOUSEHOLD EXPENS ES. THUS, THE ESTIMATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE CONSTRUED AS BONA FIDE. THEREFORE, I AM INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE.' MS. URVASHI DHUGGA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE , HAS ARGUED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESS EE WAS ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS AND THE SAME WAS ON THE HIGHER SIDE CONSIDERING THE YIELD AVAILABLE FROM THE LAND IN QUESTION AND, THER EFORE, THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERVERSE AND ARE BASED UPON CONJEC TURES AND SURMISES AND THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAVE BEEN IGNO RED WITHOUT ANY WRITTEN MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE AND P ERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION RAISED BY COUNSE L FOR THE REVENUE APPELLANT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A PURE FINDING OF FACT AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO T HE AGRICULTURAL 17 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE APPROACH A DOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY NOT RELYING UPON THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME IS WRONG, BECAUSE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LACKING IN CREDIBILITY. THE CERTIFICAT E OF AVERAGE INCOME PER ACRE OF LAND ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE PATWARI INDI CATES THE INCOME LEVEL OF RS. 36,000 PER ACRE WHICH CANNOT BE IGNORE D. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE J-FORMS EVIDENCING THE S ALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. NO DOUBT, THERE IS ALWAYS AN ELEMENT OF SU BJECTIVITY IN ESTIMATION. HOWEVER, IF IT CAN BE MADE OUT THAT THE ESTIMATE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR IS TOTALLY LACKING THE BONA FIDES AND ONLY THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN SUBSTITUTIN G HIS ESTIMATE IN PLACE OF THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO SUCH SITUATION IN THIS CASE. IN FACT, T HERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW ANY VESTED INTEREST OR MOTIVE WITH T HE ASSESSEE TO DECLARE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME HIGHER THAN THE ACT UAL AMOUNT. THUS, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING WITHOUT ANY MERIT. 8. IN THE CASE OF SHRI JARNAIL SINGH, KARTA (SUPRA) , HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED TH AT THERE IS NO FINDING THAT MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE RELI ED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LACKING IN CREDIBILITY. THE CE RTIFICATE OF VILLAGE PATWARI INDICATING AVERAGE INCOME PER AC RE OF LAND WAS HELD, COULD NOT BE IGNORED. IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY PRODUCED CERTIF ICATE FROM HALKA PATWARI EXPLAINING SAFEDA TREES PLANTED ON BOUNDARIES OF THE FIELD, ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE RE VENUE RECORD, WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY CERTIFICATE OF THE TE HSILDAR THAT NO ENTRY OF SAFEDA TREES IS NOTED IN THE REVEN UE RECORD, IF PLANTED ON BOUNDARIES. THE AFFIDAVIT OF NUMBARDAR SHRI RAM PRASHAD IS ALSO FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE SOWING OF THE SAFEDA TREES BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, THERE 18 WAS NO BASIS TO REJECT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. IN THE CASE OF SHRI JARNAIL SINGH (KARTA) (SUPRA), THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PATWARI WAS RELIED UPON, THE REFORE, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF THE REVENUE OFFICERS I N CASE OF ASSESSEE, AS NOTED ABOVE WHEN PRODUCED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IGNORED. F URTHER, IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS MERELY SMALL INTERES T INCOME ON SAVINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER INCOME EXCEPT AGRICULTURE INCOME. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MATERIA L ON RECORD TO SHOW ANY VESTED INTEREST OR MOTIVE WITH T HE ASSESSEE TO DECLARE AGRICULTURE INCOME HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL AMOUNT. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE MADE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 18 LCS ON ACCOUNT OF 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' UNDER SECTION 68/69 OF THE ACT BUT AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO POINT OUT AS TO WH AT INCOME IS EARNED BY ASSESSEE FROM OTHER SOURCES B ECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT THE AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE INTEREST IS FROM SPECIFIED SOURCE AND ASCERTAINED. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT WHAT IS THE OTHER INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE EXCEPT THAT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME, I AM OF THE VIEW THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI JARNAIL SINGH (KARTA) (SUPRA) CLEARLY APPLIES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FA CT IS FURTHER STRENGTHENED BY THE FACT THAT EVEN IN EARLI ER YEARS, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE AGRICULTURE INCOME. THEREFO RE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ASSESSEE EARNING ANY 'INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES' OTHER THAN THE AGRICULTURE INCOME. 19 9. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MATE RIAL ON RECORD, I AM OF THE VIEW ADDITION OF RS. 18 LACS IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED TREATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AS 'INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 18 LACS. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH NOVEMBER,2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH