Vasant Dattatray Parale, Kolhapur V. Income tax Officer, Kolhapur

ITA 621/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1355 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO. 621 /P U N/201 7 / ASSESSM ENT YEAR : 201 3 - 14 SHRI VASANT DATTATRAY PARALE, 10, PATIL GALLI, A/P SASEGAON, NP VIDYAMANDIR, TAL - SHAHUWADI, DIST - KOLHAPUR & 42, SAI NIWAS, OPP. THORAT GAS GODOWN, NAGALA PARK, KOLHAPUR . / APPELLANT PAN: A XUPP8575C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 ( 2 ), KOLHAPUR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : S HRI B.C. MALAKAR / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI M.K. VERMA / DATE OF HEARING : 1 3 . 0 8 .201 8 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT: 3 1 . 0 8 .201 8 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : T H E APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - 1 , KOLHAPUR , DATED 1 2 . 0 1.201 7 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 3 - 14 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL: - ITA NO. 621 /P U N/201 7 SHRI VASANT DATTATRAY PARALE 2 1 . ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T. [A] - 1 , KOLHAPUR ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,54 , 780/ - , MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS AGAINST THE SAME DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY CONVERTING THE 'LIMITED SCRUTINY' OF THE CAPITAL OF THE APPELLANT INTO A DETAILED SCRUTINY REGARDING APPELLANT'S BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME, OVERRULING THE GUIDELINES SET FOR SCRUTINY BY THE CBDT FOR THIS YEAR. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREFORE, MAY PLEASE BE TREATED AS INVALID AND QUASHED. 2 . ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C .I. T . [A] - 1 , KOLHAPUR ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,54,780/ - , MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES DENYING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS IN PROPER PERSPECTIV ES. THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED ARBITRARILY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION BEING VOID AND ILLEGAL MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEAR NED C. I .T. [ A ] - 1, KOL HAPUR ERRED I N CON FIRMI NG THE ADD ITION OF RS.35,54 ,780/ - , WITHOUT APPREC I AT I NG THE FACTS OF HOLD IN G OF THE L AND BY THE APPELLANT AS PER 7/12 EXTRACT AND ALSO THE LAND TAKEN ON LEASE FOR CULTIVAT ION IN EVIDENCE OF PROOF THAT AGRICULTURAL CROPS WERE PRODUCED IN THE SA I D LAND AND SOLD THEREOF TO EARN SUCH AG RICULTURAL IN COME . THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED ARBI TRA RIL Y CONFIRMING THE ADDITION BEING VOID AND ILLEGAL MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) - I, KOLHAPUR ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,54,780/ - , DENYING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE 5 PERSONS TO WHOM SUCH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES WERE SOLD HAD ADMITTED I N THE IR STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESS I NG OFF I CER AS REGARDS PU RCHASE OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL CROPS OF MANGOS, MA RI GOLD FLOW ERS, BRINJALS, SWEET POTATOES ETC. PRODUCED B Y THE APPE LLANT I N THE SAID L AND. THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED ARBITRARILY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION BEING VOID AND ILLEGAL MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 5 . ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) - I, KOLHAPUR ERRED M CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,54,780/ - , ACCORDING THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS REGARDS THE STATEMENT GIVEN ONLY BY 4 PERSONS A S AGAINST TOTAL 57 P ERSONS REGARDING THE LOANS ADVANCED I N CASH, WHICH HAD NO RELEV ANCE AS TO THE DETER MI NA TI ON OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME I N THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPE LLATE ORDER PASSED ARB ITRARILY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION BEING VOID AND ILLEGAL MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 6. THE APPELLANT DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO PAY ANY INTEREST U/S 23 4B AND 234C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND HENCE THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST ASSESSABILITY OF INCOME SHOWN FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY, WHICH WAS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF A SSESSEE, RESULTING IN ADDITION OF 35,54,780/ - . ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED ARE IN THIS REGARD EXCEPT GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6, ITA NO. 621 /P U N/201 7 SHRI VASANT DATTATRAY PARALE 3 WHICH IS AGAINST CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. 4. BRI EFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.02.2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 3,09,380/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 38,39,780/ - . THE ASSESSEE IS AN ENGINEER AND WAS ENGAGE D IN STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND PROVIDING CONSULTANCY SERVICES. THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 38,39,780/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FUR NISH THE DETAILS OF LANDHOLDING, AREA UNDER CULTIVATION, CROP GROWN, GROSS RECEIPTS, EXPENDITURE, DETAILS OF SALES, MODE OF PAYMENT RECEIVED AND 7/12 EXTRACTS OF THE LANDHOLDING. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED HIS LANDHOLDING TOTALING 52.92 ACRES, OUT OF WHICH PART OF THE LAND W AS INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ABOUT 44 ACRES WAS TAKEN ON LEASE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED 7/12 EXTRACT OF THE SAID LAND. HE WAS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CARRIED ON AND HE EXPLAINED THAT IN A DDITION TO SUGARCANE CROP, THE OTHER CROPS I.E. VEGETABLE CROPS WERE ALSO GROWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 7.2 OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED TO HAVE IN ITS POSSESSION ABOUT 52.92 ACRES OF LAND, OUT OF WHICH UNDER CULTIVATI ON WAS 27. 17 ACRES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED 7/12 EXTRACT ISSUED BY TALATHI. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT CULTIVATION OF THE CROP SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT RECORDED IN 7/12 RECORDS. CONSIDERING THE AGRIC ULTURAL PRODUCE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE VIS - - VIS CROP SHOWN IN FORM 7/12, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FAR EXCESSIVE AND EXAGGERATED. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT EXAGGERATION WAS FOUND BECAUSE THE AS SESSEE HA D SHOWN TO ADVANCE D ITA NO. 621 /P U N/201 7 SHRI VASANT DATTATRAY PARALE 4 33,97,916/ - IN CASH / CHEQUE TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND IN ORDER TO COVER UP THE SOURCES OF TH O SE ADVANCES, THE ASSESSEE HA D SHOWN SUCH EXCESSIVE INCOME BY CHANGING THE CROPS ITSELF THAN NOTED ON FORM NO.7/12. THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS, SHOW CAUSED AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO 25% OF TOTAL INCOME SHOWN. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE ALL THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS SOLD. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF CROPS CULTIVATE D BY HIM ON DIFFERENT AREAS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN HIS POSSESSION. THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE TALATHI VISITED THE FIELD AREA ONCE IN A YEAR AND MANY OF THE SEASONAL CROPS WERE NOT RECORDED IN 7/12 EXTRACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE SALE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PROOF OF SALE OF CROPS. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PRODUCED FIVE PERSONS OUT OF TOTAL SEVEN PERSONS TO WHOM THE CROP PROCEEDS WERE SOLD DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORD ED THEIR STATEMENTS AND HAS NOTED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SALE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND AMOUNT OF SALE ADMITTED BY THE SAID PERSONS IN TABULATED FORM UNDER PARA 7.5 AT PAGE 18 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TWO PARTIES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ANSWERS GIVEN BY THE SAID PERSONS WERE VERY STEREOTYPE. THE SAID PERSONS DID NOT HAVE ANY SHOP OR FIXED PLACE TO SELL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE STATED TO BE PURCHASED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED TH AT THEY DID NOT HAVE CREDITWORTHINESS TO CARRY OUT CULTIVATION ACTIVITY OF THE SAID PORTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT SEASONAL CROPS AND VEGETABLES WE RE NOT NOTED IN 7/12 EXTRACT, WAS NOT ACCEPT ABLE . 5. ANOTHER POINT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN ALL THE EARLIER YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO. 621 /P U N/201 7 SHRI VASANT DATTATRAY PARALE 5 ALSO NOTED THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN WAS MEAGER. TH E LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HERE STRESSED THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 WAS 40,26,615/ - BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE SAID FIGURES WERE EXAGGERATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DEPUTED AN INSPECTOR ON 29.03.2016 TO VISIT THE SAID PLACE, WHO REPORTED THAT THOUGH THERE WE RE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE ABOVE SAID AREA, BUT THE REAL OWNER AND WHO WAS TAKING CULTIVATION COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED. HE REPORTED THAT THOUGH THERE WERE MANGO TREES OF MORE THAN 300 BUT LITTLE OR NO CROP OF MANGOES WAS NOTICED. ANOTHER ASPECT POINTED OUT BY THE INSPECTOR WAS THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR WH ETHER THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE SAID PLACE WAS BEING CULTIVATED BY HIM, WAS NOT CLEAR. HE REPORTED THAT THERE WAS CROPS OF BRINJAL IN ABOUT 1.5 ACRES OF LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE A T 38,39,780/ - WAS EXAGGERATED. HE ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 2,85,000/ - AND THE BALANCE SUM OF 35,54,780/ - WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 6. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE ASSESSEE IS I N APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 8. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT PART OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE LAND WAS TAKEN ON LEASE IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR CARRYING OUT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. HE HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT VEGETABLES OR SEASONAL CROPS WHICH WERE GROWN ON THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND WERE NOT SHOWN IN 7/12 EXTRA CT. HOWEVER, IT COULD NOT BE DENIED THAT THE SAID SEASONAL CROPS WERE NOT GROWN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAME WERE SOLD TO VARIOUS ITA NO. 621 /P U N/201 7 SHRI VASANT DATTATRAY PARALE 6 PERSONS, WHO HA D ADMITTED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE FROM THE ASSESSEE, HENCE THERE WAS NO MERIT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. HE ALSO DREW MY ATTENTION TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCCEEDING YEAR AT 40,26,651/ - WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH AND NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR CARRYING OUT THE AFORESAID ACTIVITIES AND THERE WAS NO MERIT IN REJE CTING THE SAME. HE FURTHER FILED TABULATED DETAILS OF AREA UNDER CULTIVATION AND THE NATURE OF CROP SO CULTIVATED. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN BUNCH OF APP EALS WITH LEAD ORDER IN ANJUM SHOUKAT BAGWAN VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS.215 TO 225/PUN/2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999 - 2000 TO 2009 - 10, ORDER DATED 15.02.2017, WHEREIN THE LANDHOLDING WAS 74.32 ACRES AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN ASSESSING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 9. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH SPE CIAL REFERENCE TO PARA 7.7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 10. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING BOTH THE LEARNED COUNSELS, THE ISSUE WHICH NEEDS ADJUDICATION IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE QUANTUM OF INCOME TO BE ACCEPTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN OCCUPATION OF TOTAL LANDHOLDING OF 52.92 ACRES, OUT OF WHICH 44 ACRES WERE TAKEN ON LEASE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED 7/12 EXTRACT OF ITA NO. 621 /P U N/201 7 SHRI VASANT DATTATRAY PARALE 7 THE TOT AL LANDHOLDING IN HIS OCCUPATION AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE SAID LANDHOLDING AT 38,39,780/ - WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME. HE WAS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE WAS GROWING SUGA RCANE AND OTHER SEASONAL CROPS ON THE PART OF SAID LANDS, OUT OF WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED THE SAID AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, BEING SEASONAL CROPS, TALATHI HAD NOT MENTIONED THE SAID AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ON 7/12 EXTRACT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL LAND WHICH WAS UNDER CULTIVATION WAS ABOUT 27.17 ACRES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN WAS EXCESSIVE AND ALSO EXAGGERAT ED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF 2,85,000/ - AND THE BALANCE SUM OF 35,54,780/ - WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS FILED THE QUANTITY - WISE DETAILS OF THE YIELD OF DIFFERENT CROPS AND SUGARCANE AND ALSO THE YIELD OF MANGO TREES, WHICH IS AS UNDER: - SR. NO. PARTICULARS QTY (KGS) AMT AREA UNDER CULTIVATION (IN ACRE) 1 MANGOES 96,494 12,64,100 3.00 2 SWEET POTATOES 18,533 3,59,767 8.50 3 BRINJALS 93,957 15,89,165 6.17 4 MARIGOLD 100,272 20,05,540 14.67 5 SUGAR CANE 62,825 1,46,812 1.60 TOTAL 3,72,081 53,65,384 11. ANOTHER ASPECT WHICH NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN MIND IS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING YEARS. IN THE EARLIER YEARS, UNDOUBTEDLY, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN AT A LOWEST SCALE. HOWEVER, IN IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 40,26,615/ - I.E. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. THE SAID AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN TOTO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CARRIED ON C ERTAIN VERIFICATION S BY DEPUTING AN INSPECTOR, ITA NO. 621 /P U N/201 7 SHRI VASANT DATTATRAY PARALE 8 WHO REPORTED THAT THERE WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE AREA BUT HE COULD NOT ASCERTAIN THE REAL OWNERS OR WHO WERE UNDERTAKING CULTIVATION ON THE SAME. HE ALSO REPORTED THAT THERE WERE MANGO TREES BUT LITTLE OR NO CROPS OF MANGOES WERE NOTICED. AS PER PART OF HIS REPORT, INSPECTOR ALSO REPORTED THAT CROPS OF BRINJAL WERE ON ABOUT 1.5 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. IN SUCH SCENARIO, WHERE THE INSPECTOR HAS ADMITTED THAT AGRICULTURAL LANDS DO EXIST BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHO WERE THE OWNERS, THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE WHICH IS BACKED BY 7/12 EXTRACT CANNOT BE REJECTED. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR IS THAT HE ALSO REPORTED THE EXISTENCE OF MANGO TREES AND EVEN OF SEASONAL CROP OF BRINJAL ON ABOUT 1.5 ACR ES OF LAND. BOTH THESE ASPECTS WERE NOT MENTIONED IN 7/12 EXTRACT AND IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THERE IS MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE REJECTED. 12. NOW, COMING TO THE QUANTUM OF AGR ICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE . I FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ANJUM SHOUKAT BAGWAN VS. DCIT (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO ESTIMATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE H ANDS OF ASSESSEE . I N TURN, RELYING ON EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND VIDE PARA 24 AT PAGES 13 TO 16 OF THE ORDER, I HOLD THAT MERE NON - MENTION OF SEASONAL CROPS IN 7/12 EXTRACT WOULD NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SUCH PRODUCE WAS NEVER CULTIVATED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LANDHOLDING UNDER OCCUPATION OF ASSESSEE WAS LARGE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ON THE SAID LAND IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, PRECEDING YEARS AND EVEN IN SUCCEEDING YEARS. FOLLOWING THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ANJUM SHOUKAT BAGWAN VS. DCIT (SUPRA), I HOLD THAT 80% OF THE STANDARD YIELD REPORTED BY ICAR IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE YIELD IS TO BE ADOPTED TO WORK OUT THE INCOME FROM VEGETABLES AND FLOWERS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ITA NO. 621 /P U N/201 7 SHRI VASANT DATTATRAY PARALE 9 LANDHO LDING. IN CASE OF YIELD FROM FRUITS, THEN 80% OF STANDARD YIELD REPORTED BY NHB SHOULD BE ADOPTED TO WORK OUT THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BASED ON THE LAND ON WHICH FRUITS, PLANTS, ETC. WERE GROWN. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED N OT TO DISTURB THE SAME AND ACCEPT IT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST , 201 8 . SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 31 ST AUGUST , 201 8 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESP ONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 1 , KOLHAPUR ; 4. THE PR. CIT - 1 , KOLHAPUR ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TR UE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE