SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH, MUMBAI V. ACIT CIRCLE-16(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7014/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5330 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR KESHERI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Rule of consistency
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH MUMB AI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 7014/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ) SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH, SHAH & SANGHVI, SOLICITORS 114-A, MITTAL COURT, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI- 400021. PAN: AAHPS6149M VS. ACIT CIRCLE- 16 (3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT ITA NO. 7015/MUM/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ) SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH, SHAH & SANGHVI, SOLICITORS 114-A, MITTAL COURT, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI- 400021. PAN: AAHPS6149M VS. ITO- 16 (3)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT APPELLANT BY : SHRI JITENDRA JAIN (AR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY KUMAR KESHERI (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 01.05.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 29.05.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THESE TWO APPEAL BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 253 OF I NCOME-TAX ACT (ACT) ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-7, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRE D AS LD. CIT(A)] DATED 06.11.2017 & 07.11.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 013-14 & 2014- 15 RESPECTIVELY. IN BOTH THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED CERTAIN COMMON GROUND OF APPEAL EXCEPT VARIATION OF FIGURES . THEREFORE, BOTH ITA NO. 7014 & 7015 MUM 2017-SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH 2 THE APPEALS WERE CLUBBED, HEARD AND ARE DECIDED BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.40,000 PER ACRE PER A NNUM PURELY ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND THUS ERRED IN TAKING A GRICULTURE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.10,00,000 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14 IN PLACE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.19,33,670 SHOWN BY THE AP PELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9,33,670 TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY ESTIMATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.40,000 PER ACR E PER ANNUM. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRACTICING ADVOCATE IN BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 28.09.2013 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS. 79,85,720/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE H AS SHOWN SOURCE OF INCOME CONSISTING THE HEAD OF INCOME UNDER INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION, CAPITAL GAIN, INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO OFFERED AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 19, 33,670/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 28.03.2016. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TREATED THE AGRICULTUR E INCOME OF RS. 19,33,670/- AS BOGUS AGRICULTURE INCOME. 3. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE AGRICULTURE IN COME WAS ESTIMATED @ 40,000/- PER ACRE PER ANNUM. THE ASSESSEE OWNED 5 0 ACRE OF LAND ITA NO. 7014 & 7015 MUM 2017-SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH 3 WITH HIS MOTHER, THEREFORE, THE TOTAL AGRICULTURE I NCOME FROM 50 ACRE OF LAND WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 20,00,000/-. SINCE THE AS SESSEE IS OWNER OF 50% IN THE LAND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF RS. 10,00,000/-, THEREBY THE ADDITION WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 9,33,670/-. FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE OWNS 50 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ALONG WITH HIS MOTHER IN A REMOTE VILLAGE KHATALWADA, TALUKA UMARG AM, DISTRICT- VALSAD, STATE OF GUJARAT. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBER IN THE YEAR 1996 TO 2007. IN THE LAND, VARIOUS CASH CROPS LIKE MANGO, CHICKOO, GUAVA, JACK FRUIT ETC ARE GROWN AND TO SOME EXTENT, THE VEGETABLES ARE ALSO GROWN. THE ASSESSEE IS PRACTICING ADVOCATE HAVING PRACTICE IN BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND HAVING ITS OFFICE IN BOMBAY AND VISITS THE AGRICULTURAL LA ND ONCE OR TWICE IN EVERY MONTH. THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ARE LOOK A FTER BY HIS WIFE AND MOTHER PERSONALLY WITH THE HELP OF LABORERS AND VA RIOUS STAFF, THE ASSESSEE HAS EMPLOYED ONE MUKESH SANGANI, WHO IS AL SO ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION BUT DOES NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL PRACTICE A ND MANAGING THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AT THE FARM LAND OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ITA NO. 7014 & 7015 MUM 2017-SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH 4 MAINTAINING INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND FURNIS HED THE DETAILS THEREOF TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NET AGRICULTUR AL PROFIT WAS SHOWN AT RS. 38,67,340/- AND ASSESSEES SHARE OF 50% AMOUNTI NG TO RS. 19,33,670/- WAS SHOWN AS AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE AS SESSING OFFICER RAISED CERTAIN QUERIES WHICH WERE REPLIED BY THE AS SESSEE TO THE SATISFACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT IN SPECTOR VISITED THE FARM ON 03.03.2016, TREES IN FARM WERE ALL DRIED UP . THERE WERE ONLY FEW MANGO TREES WHICH WERE NOT HAVING ANY FRUIT IN THE PEAK SEASON. ACCORDING TO THE STATEMENT OF SH. MOHAN DHIMAJI SHA H, OWNER OF ADJOINING/OPPOSITE FARM ALLEGEDLY TOLD THAT THE SAI D FARM WAS SOLD 8 TO 10 YEARS BACK AND THERE IS NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SELF-MADE VOUCHERS AND BILLS THAT AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE (APMC) NO R ANY SIGNATURE OR THUMB IMPRESSION ON THE SALE RECEIPT TO WHOM AGR ICULTURE PRODUCED OR SOLD AND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ENTIRE SHARE OF A GRICULTURE RECEIPT AS BOGUS AGRICULTURE INCOME. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESS EE HOLDING THAT THE NET AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 77,347/- PER ACRE SHOWN B Y ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE VERY HIGH AND REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE L D. CIT(A) ESTIMATED ITA NO. 7014 & 7015 MUM 2017-SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH 5 THE AGRICULTURE INCOME @ 40,000/- PER ACRE AND ASSE SSED THE TOTAL AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 20,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE BEING 50% SHARE HOLDER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS. 10,00,000/- AND REMAINING AMOUNT WAS CONFIRMED. THE LD. AR OF THE A SSESSEE SUBMITS THAT LD. CIT(A) MADE ESTIMATION OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE SAME INCOME WAS ACCEPTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY MOTHER OF A SSESSEE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN EARLIER YEARS NO SUCH ADDIT IONS/ DISALLOWANCE WERE MADE. 7. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE WORKING OF AGRICULTURE INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 @ RS.61,577/-, ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12 @ 86,772/- AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 @ RS. 76,2 71/- PER ACRE PER YEAR, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSES SEE IS RS.77,347/- AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IT IS RS. 96,951/- PER ACRE PER YEAR ONLY, THERE IS NO MUCH VARIANCE WITH THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FR OM 01.04.2012 TO 31.03.2013 IS ALSO FILED. ON OUR QUERY REGARDING EX PENDITURE OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF RS. 7,77,390/-. THE LD. AR OF TH E ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE BOUNDARY WALL OF THE FARM LAND WAS REPAIRED AND EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON FENCING AND ERECTIN G THE BOUNDARY WALL. 8. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSE SSEE RELIED UPON THE ITA NO. 7014 & 7015 MUM 2017-SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH 6 DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN R.B. JESSA RAM FATEHCHAND (SUGAR DEPT.) VS. CIT [75 ITR 33 (BOM)] THE DECISIO N OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NEEL GIRI KRISHI FA RMS PVT. LTD. (38 TAXMANN.COM 69 (ALLAHABAD. HC), DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS. VIJAY SALES (52 TAXMANN.COM 310 (MUM. TRIB .), DECISION OF JAIPUR TRIBUNAL IN RESONANCE ADVENTURES (P.) LTD. V S. ACIT (83 TAXMANN.COM 232 (JAIPUR TRIB.) 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMI TS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSES SEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ANY AGRICULTURA L ACTIVITIES ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE REJOINDER SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE WHICH CONSIST OF COPY OF SURVEY REPORT DATED 08.04.2010, 7/12 EXTRACT IN RESPECT OF KHATA NO. 500 IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AN D HER MOTHER ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF REVENUE RECORD, COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GRAM PANCHAYAT OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION THEREOF, COPY OF INSURANCE POLICY. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET AGRICULTURE ITA NO. 7014 & 7015 MUM 2017-SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH 7 PROFIT OF RS. 19,33,670/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED T O FURNISH DETAIL OF AREA OF LAND, INCOME RECEIVED AND EXPENDITURE INCUR RED ALONG WITH PROOF OF PAYMENT AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES WHO WHOM SALE S WERE MADE. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS REPLY VIDE REPLY DATED 29.01.201 6. IN THE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAIL OF EXPENSES CONSISTIN G OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES, LABOUR CHARGES, SALARY, PESTICIDES AND FER TILIZER, DIESEL, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, TRACTOR CHARGES, SEEDS, INSURANCE AND CONSULTANCY ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF PERMANENT PERSON EMPLOYED FOR AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIE S AT THE FARM LAND. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE NAME OF THREE PERSONS NA MELY SHAVESH MACHIN, SANA AND SITARAM PAVADE. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER RECORDED THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6), SENT TO ALL THREE PERS ONS, THE NOTICE SENT TO SITARAM PAVADE RETURNED BACK UNSERVED AND NO COMPLI ANCE WAS MADE BY REMAINING TWO PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT DEPUTED THE INSPECTOR TO VISIT THE FARM LAND OF ASS ESSEE. AS PER THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR, THERE WERE ONLY FEW MANGO TREES W HICH DID NOT BEAR ANY FRUIT DURING THE PICK SEASON. THERE WAS NO OTHE R FRUITS OR VEGETABLES AND NO PERSON WAS LOOKING AFTER THE FARM. THE INSPE CTOR GAVE REPORT THAT THERE WERE NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE IS AN ADVOCATE AND ENGAGED IN HIS PRO FESSIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE REMUNERATION/INCOME FROM PROFESSION FROM HIS PA RTNERSHIP FIRM IS RS. 50,86,165/- AND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED T O GET HIS ACCOUNT ITA NO. 7014 & 7015 MUM 2017-SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH 8 AUDITED. WHEN ASSESSEE WAS SHOW-CAUSED ABOUT AUDIT ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HIS FIRM IS SEPARATELY ASSE SSED AND AUDITED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS N O EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION NOR PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF EXPENSES AND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIA TE HIS GENUINENESS OF AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREAT ED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AS BOGUS AGRICULTURE INCOME. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS RECORDED I N PARA-4 OF HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE REPORT OF INSP ECTOR, WHO WAS ALLEGEDLY DEPUTED TO VERIFY THE FACTS REGARDING AGR ICULTURE ACTIVITIES, WAS NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT ANOTHER INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR VERI FICATION OF FACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, WHO VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 05.12.2016 ACCEPTED THAT AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES WAS CARRIED ON AT THE FARM-LAND. COPY OF SAID REPORT WAS FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT REP ORT OF EARLIER YEAR SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION AND DETAILS OF EXP ENSES OF AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES AND THE RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN NOT CONFRONTING THE ASSESSEE WITH THE MATERIAL USED AGAINST HIM. HA D THE MATERIAL BEEN ITA NO. 7014 & 7015 MUM 2017-SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH 9 CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BE EN IN A BETTER POSITION TO EXPLAIN HIS STAND ON THIS MATERIAL. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, AFTER THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR DATED 08.03. 2016, ANOTHER INSPECTOR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2014-15, WHO VIDE HIS REPORTED DATED 05.12.2016 ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON IN THE FARM-LAND. THE REPORT WAS PREPARED AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE LABORERS WORKING ON THE FARM AN D THE MANAGER IN CHARGE. THE INSPECTOR RECORDED THE EXISTENCE OF VAR IOUS TREES AND PLANTATION. ON THE BASIS OF HIS OBSERVATION, THE LD . CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE IS HAVING A REASONABLE SIZE OF FARM-L AND OF 50 ACRES. THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF SALE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WHICH IS RS. 60,34,964/-, WORKED OUT THE INCOME OF FARM-LAND PER ACRE PER YEAR OF RS. 77,347/-. ACCORDING TO LD CIT(A) THE SAME REMAI NED UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED TH AT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE WITHOUT INVOLVEMENT O F REGULAR TRADERS AND AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE (APMC) . NO PAYMENT OR PART OF SALE PROCEED IS SHOWN BY ASSESSEE THROUGH C HEQUES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SPENT EXPENSES THROUGH CHEQUE. THE LD. CIT( A) CONCLUDED THAT THE NET AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 77,347/- PER ACRE S APPEARS TO BE VERY HIGH WHICH REMAINS UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES AND THE FA CT THAT ASSESSEE WAS SHOWING AGRICULTURE INCOME IN THE PAST YEAR ALSO, T HE AGRICULTURE INCOME ITA NO. 7014 & 7015 MUM 2017-SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH 10 WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 40,000/- PER ACRE PER ANNUM, T HEREBY GRANTED A RELIEF OF RS. 10,00,000/- AND REMAINING OF RS. 9,33 ,670/- WAS CONFIRMED. 13. BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF SURVEY RE PORT DATED 08.04.2010, 7/12 EXTRACT IN RESPECT OF KHATA NO. 500 IN THE NAM E OF ASSESSEE AND HER MOTHER ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF REVENUE RE CORD, COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GRAM PANCHAYAT OF ENGLISH TRA NSLATION THEREOF, COPY OF INSURANCE POLICY, COPY OF GOOGLE MAP PRINT OUT, COPY OF INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, COPY OF INSURANCE POLICY OF TRACTOR. IN OUR VIEW, ALL THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE BONE OF CONTENTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AS SESSEE IS ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE AND THE EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURE YIELD. THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COPY OF THE SU RVEY REPORT DATED 08.04.2010 SHOWING THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF VARIOUS DETAILS OF BOUNDARY WALL, ELECTRIC POLES, LIGHTS, HIGH TENSION LINE, DI FFERENT KINDS OF FRUITS THE TREES. THE DIFFERENT TREES ARE SHOWN ALONG WITH THE IR SITE AND LOCATIONS AND NUMBER. THE LD. DR DURING HIS SUBMISSIONS HAS N OT DISPUTED THE SURVEY REPORT. 14. IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED THAT THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED PER ACRE PER YEAR THE AGRICULTURE INCO ME @ RS.61,577/-, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, RS. 86,772/- FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2011-12 AND RS. 76,271/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THOUGH, T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THOSE ASSESSM ENT YEARS, IF SUCH ITA NO. 7014 & 7015 MUM 2017-SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH 11 INCOME WAS ACCEPTED IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT OR I NTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1). SIMILARLY, THIS FACT IS NOT DISPUTE D BY LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE. EVEN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SIMI LAR INCOME OFFERED BY JOINT OWNER OF THE SAME AGRICULTURE LAND IS ACCE PTED BY THE REVENUE. 15. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. NEEL GI RI KRISHI FARMS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) HELD THAT WHEN ENTRIES IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT PROVED TO BE BOGUS, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE ON CRED IT OF CASH RECEIVED BY SELLING AGRICULTURE PRODUCT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS TO BE TREATED AS A SEPARATE UNIT, THE FINDI NG IN RESPECT OF PREVIOUS YEAR BASED ON RECORD OF TITLE AND POSSESSION OF AGR ICULTURE LAND. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRE TO SUBMIT THE PROOF OF AGRI CULTURE OPERATION EVERY YEAR, IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, WHICH MAY SUGGEST THAT AGRICULTURE OPERATION WAS STOPPED OR WAS NOT CARRIED OUT IN THE RELEVANT PERIOD. 16. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN DCIT VS . VIJAY SALES (SUPRA) HELD THAT MERELY CERTAIN EXPENDITURE WAS IN CURRED IN CASH CANNOT BE BASIS FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE. 17. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN R.B. JASSA RAM FATEHCHAND (SUGAR DEPT.) VS. CIT (SUPRA) HELD THAT THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED, UNLESS ON VERIFICATION, THEY DI SCLOSED ANY FAULT OR DEFECT WHICH CANNOT BE REASONABLY AND SATISFACTORY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL OTHER TRANSACTION EXCEPT CASH TRANSAC TION WHICH WERE VERIFIABLE, HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND SCRUTINIZED BY A SSESSING OFFICER. THE ITA NO. 7014 & 7015 MUM 2017-SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH 12 QUALITY OF MATERIAL SOLD NOT DISPUTED, THE RATE AT WHICH MATERIAL WAS SOLD WERE NOT SUCH AS WOULD EXCITE SUSPICION BY REASONS OF BEING LOWER THAN THE PREVAILING RATE. WHERE THERE WAS NO NECESSITY T O MAINTAIN ADDRESS OF CASH CUSTOMER THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WER E NOT JUSTIFIED. NOW AGAIN TURNING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD MORE THAN 36 00 FRUIT BEARING TREES WERE IN THE FARMLAND. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED T HE PHOTOGRAPHS OF FARMLAND ALONG WITH THE SURVEY REPORT SHOWING VARIO US TYPE OF TREES, DETAILS OF WHICH WERE FURNISHED BY LD. CIT(A), COPY OF WHICH ARE PLACED BEFORE US VIDE PAGE NO. 14 TO 33 OF PAPER BOOK. NO COMMENT ON THOSE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WERE MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R. MOREOVER, IN THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR DATED 05.12.2016 AGRICULTUR E ACTIVITIES IN THE FARMLAND WAS ACCEPTED. THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 77,347/- PER ACRE PER ANNUM BY HOLDIN G IT ON HIGHER SIDE. THE LD. CIT(A) ESTIMATED AGRICULTURE INCOME @ RS. 4 0,000/- PER ACRE PER ANNUM. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS F OR ESTIMATING SUCH AGRICULTURE INCOME. IN OUR VIEW, THE ESTIMATION MAD E BY LD. CIT(A) IS ON THE LOWER SIDE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED YIELD OF C ASH CROP. IN OUR VIEW, THE KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURE INCOME @ RS. 50,000/- PER ACRE PER ANNUM WOULD MEET THE END OF JUSTICE. THUS, THE ASSESSEES SHARE BEING 50% WOULD BE RS. 12,50,000/-. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE I S GRANTED A PARTIAL ITA NO. 7014 & 7015 MUM 2017-SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH 13 RELIEF OF RS. 2,50,000/-, IN ADDITION TO THE RELIEF GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSE E ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 7015/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) 18. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS RAISED IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2013-14, WHICH WE HAVE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE REFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, THE APPEAL FOR A .Y. 2014-15 IS ALSO ALLOWED WITH SIMILAR DIRECTION. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH A.YS . ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/05/ 2019. SD/- SD /- G.S. PANNU PAWAN SINGH VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 29.05.2019 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI