Asst. CIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur V. Ghodawat Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur

ITA 635/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79786 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L PATHADE
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.635/PN/2013 (A.Y: 2005-06) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR APPELLANT VS. GHODAWAT INDUSTRIES (I) PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.438, A/P CHIPARI, TAL SHIROL, DIST KOLHAPUR PAN: AAACG6910C RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.L.PA THADE RESPONDENT BY : BHARAT S HAH DATE OF HEARING: 04.04.2014 DATE OF ORDER : 30.04.2014 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), [IN SHORT C IT(A)] KOLHAPUR, DATED 18.12.2012 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,02,73,124/- 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUND RAISED, ANY OTHER GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL WHICH MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED. 2. THE ASSESSEE, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY IS A MAN UFACTURER OF PANMASALA, GUTKHA, ELECTRICITY, ETC. AND ALSO DE RIVED INCOME FROM TRADING IN MOSQUITO COIL, MATCHES, TEA, BATTER Y CELLS, ETC. 2 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.10.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT 8,93,51,850/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT 4,17,76,016/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED FROM TH E RETURN FILED, THAT OUT OF 4,99,22,892/- SHOWN AS GROSS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF 81 ,46,877/- AND HAD DECLARED NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT 4,17,76,015/-. ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORD, HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED 1,16,58,623/- IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND 1,22,95,154/- IN MACHINERY, PIPELINES, ETC. IN AGRI CULTURAL DIVISION. IN VIEW OF NET PROFIT PERCENTAGE OF 83.6 7% VIS--VIS EXPENSES SHOWN @ 16.33%, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROC EEDED TO VERIFY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN DETAIL. HE HAS LOOKE D INTO THE DETAILS IN THE FOLLOWING BACKGROUND: I) TOTAL LAND HOLDING AND LAND UNDER CULTIVATION II) AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION III) VERIFICATION OF SALE BILLS HAVING DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITH ABOVE ANALYSIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED EXCESS AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF 3,02,73,124/-. HE TREATED THIS INCOME AS ASSESSEE S UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDI NGLY, BROUGHT THE SAME INTO TAX. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BE FORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO HAVING ANALYSED THE I SSUE AT ON ALL ASPECTS I.E. LAND HOLDING, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND SALE THEREOF, GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US ON BEHALF OF REVENUE, INTER ALIA, SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 3,02,733124/- AND REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND T HAT OF ASSESSING 3 OFFICER BE RESTORED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. THE CIT(A) IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2005-06 HELD THAT THE DECISION GIVEN BY HIS PREDECESSOR ON FACTS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 WILL HOLD GOOD FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WHOLE. IT IS PERTINENT TO M ENTION HERE THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINS T THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN A.Y. 2004-05. MOREOVER, IN A.Y. 2006-07, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE ONLY DISPUTED THE E XPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE SAME, MEANING THEREBY AGRICULTURAL INCO ME HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN A.Y. 2006-07 AS WELL. SO, THIS TA KES CARE OF ISSUE OF LAND HOLDING AND LAND UNDER CULTIVATION AS WELL AS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE / YIELD THEREON. 4.1 REGARDING VERIFICATION OF SALE BILLS, WE FIND T HAT REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT DISPUTED THE LAND HOLDING OF A SSESSEE I.E. 40.03 HECTORS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETA ILS AND 7/12 EXTRACTS BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS BEFORE US. REGARDING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE / YIELD THEREON AND THE ASSESS EE MAINLY GROWING CASH CROPS ON THE SAID AGRICULTURAL HOLDING . COMING TO THE POINT OF VERIFICATION OF SALE BILLS, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON EXAMINATION OF VARIOUS BILLS AND VOU CHERS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER NOTICED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: A) BILLS ISSUED BY KAPLESHWAR FLOWER STALL, CHERISH FLOWERS, UPENDRANAGAR, DADAR MUMBAI AND SONAL FLOWERS, SENAP ATI BAPAT MARG, MUMBAI, WERE SERIALLY NUMBERED, WHICH INDICATES THAT THESE VENDORS HAD NOT MADE SALES TO ANY OTHER PARTY OTHER THAN THE APPELLANT. B) SALE BILLS ISSUED BY 'AROMA FLORA', UPENDRANAG AR, ROOM NO. 7, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, DADAR-WEST, MUMBAI- 28 AND 'JASMINE FLORA', 17, VIJAYNAGAR, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, 4 MUMBAI-28 ARE PRINTED ON COMPUTER IN A SIMILAR FASH ION. THEIR ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS WERE IDENTICAL. C) IN THE BILLS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT BY M/S CHAN DER BHAN SHARMA, MIRAJ, THE WORD 'COMMISSION' WAS ERASE D AND WAS OVERWRITTEN AS 'DISCOUNT'. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD DEPUTED HIS OFFICE INSPECTOR TO VERIFY AND OBTAIN T HE COPIES OF BILLS. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THA T - D) AS MANY AS 25 LETTERS ISSUED TO THE SALE PARTIES UNDER SECTION 133(6) CALLING FOR INFORMATION IN RESPECT O F THE TRANSACTIONS MADE WITH THE APPELLANT DID NOT EVOKE ANY RESPONSE. THE LETTERS WERE RETURNED UNSERVED (EXCE PT IN THE CASES OF VIZ. M/S R B SHAHAPURE (BUBANALKAR) STATIO N ROAD, JAYASINGPUR-01, M/S PRASHANT GADAGE, GANGANIW AS, NEAR KRISHNA HOSPITAL SANGLI AND SHRI CHANDER BHAN SHARMA, MIRAJ). HENCE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SALE PARTIES WAS DOUBTFUL. E) THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE CONFIRM ATIONS FROM ALL THE SALE PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE CONFIRMATIO N LETTERS WERE SANS SIGNATURE, ADDRESS, PAN ETC. IN SOME CASE S, THE CONFIRMATION AND SALE BILLS WERE SIGNED BY DIFFEREN T PERSONS. F) CONFIRMATION ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT REVEALED THAT IN ALMOST ALL CASES SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS REALIZED THROUGH DEMAND DR AFTS AND NOT THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. G) THE SALE BILLS INDICATE THAT THE RATE AT WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD ITS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS MUCH HIGHER T HAN THE RATES PREVAILING IN THE MARKET AT THAT PARTICULAR P OINT OF TIME. THE SALE PRICE OF A GERBERA FLOWER SOLD BY TH E APPELLANT WAS @ 2.6 WHEREAS THE RATE PER FLOWER AS SHOWN BY M/S SHRIVARDHAN BIO-TECH, KINDIGR E WAS 1.8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CONCLUDED THAT THE BILLS PRODUCED SUFFERED FROM INF IRMITIES AND THESE DID NOT REFLECT THE CORRECT STATUS OF THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNTS. 4.2 IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 20.07.2008 CONTENDED THAT OBSERVATION OF ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING DISCREPANCY FOUND IN SALES WERE INCORRECT . IT WAS 5 FURTHER STATED THAT DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME, CONFIRM ATION ON THE LETTER HEAD OF THE PARTIES COULD NOT BE GIVEN AND T HAT IF REQUIRED CONFIRMATIONS COULD BE PRODUCED AND CERTAIN PARTIES COULD ALSO BE PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION. IT WAS FURTHER CONTEN DED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE THAT SALE BILLS WERE SENT BY THE AGENTS WHO SELL THEIR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. THEY HAD THEIR OWN METHOD O F MAINTAINING THESE BILLS AND ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE A NY CONTROL OVER THEM. IT WAS ALSO CONTENTED AS PER SALE BILLS AND PATTIES RECEIVED, NECESSARY ENTRIES WERE MADE IN ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RELIED ON THE APPEL LATE ORDER OF CIT(A)S PREDECESSOR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y . 2004-05 ON THIS ACCOUNT. MOREOVER, THE REMAND REPORT WAS CALL ED FOR IN THIS REGARD FROM CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER. IN REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT PROPERLY COOPERATED IN TH E PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS REMAND REPORT DATED 08.04.2010 STATED THAT THE DISCREPANCY IN THE SALE BILL IS NOT ONLY OBSERVATION BASED ON WHICH AN ADDITION OF EXCESS INCOME WAS MAD E BUT VARIOUS OTHER OBSERVATIONS WERE ALSO MADE IN THIS R EGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT IT WAS ESTABLISHE D BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LOWEST COST, HIGHEST PROD UCTION AND HIGHEST PRICE FOR ITS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. IN THI S CONNECTION A COMPARABLE DATA COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT. HOWEV ER, DESPITE GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME AND OPPORTUNITY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM. REGARDING THE ASSESSEES PLEA TH AT EVIDENCES ETC. COULD NOT BE PRODUCED DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME WAS NO T FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS MENTION ED IN HIS REPORT THAT AS PER RECORDS, A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISS UED ON 04.10.2007 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY RE QUIRED TO GIVE DETAILS OF SALE PARTIES. ON THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED B Y THE SAID OFFICE TO EXAMINE THE SALE PARTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE POWERS OF CIT(A) ARE CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER AND IF DEEMED FIT, THESE POWERS C OULD BE 6 EXERCISED BY THE CIT(A) IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE SALE PARTIES IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S PRESENCE. IT WAS FINALLY STATED THAT THE ISSUE BE DECIDED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 4.3 IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT UTILIZE THE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO HIM BY THE OFFICE TO EXAMINE THE PARTIES TO WHOM SALES WERE MA DE. THE PURPOSE OF A REMAND IS TO ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE OPPO RTUNITY IS PROVIDED TO BOTH PARTIES TO EXAMINE THE CASE AND PU T FORTH BOTH VIEWS IN THE SHORTEST PERIOD OF TIME. THE CIT(A) O BSERVED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS EXAMINED IN A.Y. 2003-04 AND IT W AS FOUND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WRONGLY INFERRED FROM THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE HIM THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOR SALE OF FLOWERS WAS INCORRECT OR THAT THE ALLEG ED DISCREPANCIES WERE ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING FOR AN EXPLAN ATION FOR THE SAME. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2003- 04 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: .ANOTHER ALLEGATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS THAT MOST OF THE BILLS APPEARS TO BE COMPUTERIZED A ND SERIALLY NUMBERED AS IF THESE PARTIES WERE DEALING WITH THE APPELLANT COMPANY. HE GOES ON TO SAY THAT VERIFICAT ION OF THE BILLS REVEALS THAT MORE THAN 50% OF THE BILLS ARE D OUBTFUL. THE BILLS ARE ACTUALLY NOT SERIALLY NUMBERED AND TO THE SAME PARTY. THE SYSTEM FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT IS THAT FLOWERS ARE SENT TO TRADERS IN VARIOUS TOWNS AND CITIES. ON RECEIPT OF THE GOODS, THE DISTRIBUTOR CHECKS THE SAME AND PROV IDES A KIND OF RECEIPT FOR THE GOODS THAT HE HAS ACCEPTED. SUCH RECEIPTS FROM A PARTICULAR TRADER ARE PERIODICALLY BUNCHED TOGETHER AND A JOURNAL VOUCHER (JV) IS PASSED IN TH E BOOKS FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE FROM THE PARTICULAR TRADER . THE JVS ARE SERIALLY NUMBERED. THUS, IT IS WRONG TO SA Y THAT THE BILLS ARE SERIALLY NUMBERED AND TO THE SAME PARTY. 4.4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE INSTANCE OF KALPESHWAR FLOWER STALL, CHERISH FLOWERS AND SONAL FLOWERS IN SUPPORT OF HIS FINDING THAT THE BILLS ISSUED ARE SERIALLY NUMBERED . THESE SALE PATTIES ARE NOTHING BUT A RECEIPT FOR GOODS RECEIVE D BY THE 7 DISTRIBUTOR WHO FURTHER SELLS THEM IN THE MARKET. T HESE ARE NOT INSTANCES OF SALES BY THE ENTITIES MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE A SALE THROUGH THESE PERSONS. WHETHER OR NOT THESE PERSONS HAD MADE PURCHASES FRO M OTHER PARTIES COULD NOT BE STATED ONLY BY EXAMINATION OF THE SALE PATTIES SENT BY THE DISTRIBUTORS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHOSEN TO FOREGO THIS OPPORTUNITY PROVI DED TO HIM IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. REGARDING GENUINENESS OF TR ANSACTION, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ADDRESS OF AROMA FLOWERS W AS 5, UPENDRANAGAR WHILE THAT OF JASMINE WAS 17 VIJAYNAGA R. THE ASSESSEE WAS SELLING ITS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IF IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO CONDUCT DISTRIBUTION OPERATION FROM ONE ADDRESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT 25 LETTERS WE RE ISSUED U/S. 133(6) TO VARIOUS PERSONS WHICH HAD COME BACK WITH THE COMMENT 'NOT KNOWN'. HOWEVER, THE CONFIRMATIONS GI VEN BY THE ASSESSEE REVEAL THAT SOME OF THE SIGNATURES AND SAL E BILLS DID NOT MATCH WITH THE SIGNATURES IN THE CONFIRMATION. ON T HIS ASPECT, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE SAM E PERSON WHO HAD ISSUED THE SALE PATTIES HAD RECEIVED THE DELIVE RY OF FLOWERS WOULD HAVE SIGNED THE CONFIRMATION AS WELL. IT WAS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REQUIRED THE ASSE SSEE TO PRODUCE THE PAN NUMBER OF THE PERSONS THROUGH WHOM THE FLOWERS WERE SOLD. IN ANY CASE, IT WAS CLEAR FROM T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REQUIRE TH ESE PERSONS TO BE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. AS NOTED ABOVE, IN O RDER TO OBVIATE ANY DOUBT WHICH HAVE ARISEN DUE TO THE INCONSISTENC IES MENTIONED ABOVE, THE PREDECESSOR OF CIT(A) HAD ALLO WED THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE ALL THE SE PERSONS AND THEN TO OFFER HIS COMMENTS ON THE ON THE POINT OF GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DISTRIBUTORS OR THE PERSONS TO WHOM SALES WERE MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AVAIL OF THE OPPORTUNITY AND THEREFORE, 8 THE OBSERVATIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THESE PERSONS AND THE SALES DONE THR OUGH THEM WERE OF NO CONSEQUENCE. THE MAIN THRUST OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD HIS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AT A MUCH HIGHER RATE THAN THE PREVAILING RATE AT THAT PARTIC ULAR TIME. IN THIS REGARD, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ARE SUCH WHICH FETCH HIGHER PRICE IF THEIR QUALITY IS G OOD. THE PRICE OF FLOWERS, FRUITS, VEGETABLES ETC. DEPENDS ON THEIR Q UALITY AND THESE PRODUCTS FETCH A PREMIUM IN THE MARKET IF THEY ARE OF SUPERIOR QUALITY. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE PRODUCED BY THE A GRICULTURAL / FLORAL PRODUCE OF HIGHEST QUALITY IS EVIDENCED FROM THE FACT THAT HE HAS RECEIVED 181 AWARDS FROM VARIOUS AGENCIES, I NCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT, BEFORE THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. IT S HOWS THAT THOUGH THE SALE PATTIES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY APPEAR TO BE D OUBTFUL AND THE LETTERS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) WOULD HAVE COME BACK UNSERVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISREGARDED THE DI RECTION OF OFFICE OF CIT(A) IN AVAILING THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXA MINE THE PERSONS THROUGH WHOM THE FLOWERS WERE SOLD. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AVAIL OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFIRM HIS DOUBTS WHETHER THE PARTIES EXISTED OR NOT. SINCE THE OPPO RTUNITY TO REBUT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT THE SALES WERE GENU INE AND THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS CORRECT AND THAT THE P ARTIES WERE EXISTING HAS BEEN WAIVED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN HE CHOSE TO DISREGARD THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE WITNESSES. 4.5 IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE CIT(A) RIGHTLY HELD THA T ALLEGATION THAT THE SALE PATTIES ARE DOUBTFUL, DOES NOT HAVE A NY MERIT. CONSIDERING THE LAND HOLDING AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIV ITY AND SALE THEREOF AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO REJECT THE PRODUCTION FIGURES RETURNED BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF AGRICULT URAL PRODUCTS, 9 CROPS AND FLOWERS AND TREATED THE PART OF INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, WE FIND THAT REVENU E AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT DISPUTED THE LAND HOLDING I.E. 40.03 HECTO RS OF ASSESSEE AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY THEREON. AS STATED ABOVE , A SIMILAR ADDITION MADE IN A.Y. 2004-05 WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) AND REVENUE HAVE NOT PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME. MOREOV ER, IN A.Y. 2006-07, AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON THE SAME HOLDING HA S BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF. HOWEVER, HE HAS DISPUTED THE EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING AGRICULTURAL I NCOME ON THE SAID HOLDING. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE CIT(A) RIGHT LY DELETED THE ADDITION OF 3,02,73,124/-. THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE DAY 30 TH OF APRIL, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 30 TH APRIL, 2014 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1) DEPARTMENT 2) ASSESSEE 3) THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR 4) THE CIT, KOLHAPUR 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, I.T.A.T., PUNE