BASERA CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI V. DCIT CC 9, MUMBAI

ITA 7684/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88080 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR BOARA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'SMC' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 7684 & 7687/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1996-97 & 2001-02) M/S. BASERA CONSTRUCTION VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9 PLOT NO. 112, GROUND FLOOR CGO BLDG. ANNEXE 6 TH ROAD, TPS-III, KHAR ROAD (W) M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 MUMBAI 400052 PAN AAAFB4438R APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BOARA DATE OF HEARING: 29.01.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.01.2015 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED B Y CIT(A)-37, MUMBAI. 2. ASSESSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF UNDERTA KING CIVIL CONTRACTS. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSE E DECLARED CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OUT OF WHICH 50% WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. IN AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 1996-97, A.Y. 1998-99 AND A.Y. 2001- 02 ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE ANY WELL GROUNDED ESTIMATE AND SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE EARLIER ASSESSM ENT ORDERS ON THE GROUND THAT THE MATTER IS VERY OLD AND IT IS DIFFIC ULT TO COLLECT EVIDENCE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED AGRI CULTURAL INCOME IN THE PAST ALSO AND THE SAME WERE ACCEPTED WITH MINOR DIS ALLOWANCES. HE FURNISHED DETAILS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLO SED FOR A.Y. 2006-07, 2004-05, 2003-04 AND 2001-02 TO SUBMIT THAT SUBSTAN TIAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN, WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE AO. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN SO FAR AS A.Y. 1996-97 IS CONCERNED THERE IS NO CERTIFICATE FROM THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES NOR FROM ITA NO. 7684 & 7687/MUM/2011 M/S. BASERA CONSTRUCTION 2 VILLAGE TALATHI AS REGARD LAND HOLDING AS WELL AS A GRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENTS AND TOOLS, TRACTORS, IRRIGATION PUMPS, BULLOCK CARTS, DETAILS OF PURCHAS E OF SEEDS, FERTILIZERS, ETC. DESPITE NON-FURNISHING OF DETAILS THE AO ESTIM ATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.1,50,163/-. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WA S THAT THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATED AND SOLD GRAPES IN F.Y. 1996-97. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS ALSO CULTIVATED BRINJAL, BHENDI, PALAK, DHANIA, CUCUMBER, TOMATO, GROUND NUT, MOSAMBI AND MILLETS. HOWEVER, THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT CERTIFIED CULTIVATION OF THESE CROPS. NO INDEPE NDENT THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE. THOUGH IT WAS NOT SPECIFIED ANYWHERE AS TO WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, IT APPEARS THAT TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE CULTIVATED 1 HECTOR 62 R LAND WHICH IS EQUIVAL ENT TO 4.02 ACRES OF LAND. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THE LEARNED CI T(A) CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1.05,163/- AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RS.2,10,325/-. SIMILARLY, FOR A.Y. 2001-02 THE AO A CCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2,26,178/- AND THE BALANCE OF RS.2,26, 210 WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,22,356/- BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS THE AO ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT RS.2,26,178/-, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). FURTHER AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THOUGH NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY RPAD AND THEREAFTER ADJ OURNED FROM TIME TO TIME NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E. I, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EXPARTE, QUA THE A SSESSEE. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. PLACED BEFO RE ME A COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT B BENCH, MUMBAI IN ASSESSEES O WN CASE FOR A.Y. 1998-99 TO SUBMIT THAT EVEN IN THE AFOREMENTIONED C ASE NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO QUALITY OF LAND AND OTHER AUTHENTICATED DETAILS WITH REGARD TO SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND THU S THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) (ITA NO. 7685/MU M/2011 DATED 11.08.2014). 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED D.R . CAREFULLY AND PERUSED THE RECORD. EVEN IN THESE TWO APPEALS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON ITA NO. 7684 & 7687/MUM/2011 M/S. BASERA CONSTRUCTION 3 RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED SUCH HUGE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY THE EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME I AM OF THE VIEW THA T THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO. IN FA CT THE AO WAS MORE GENEROUS IN ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN T HE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS AT THE HIGHER SIDE COMPARED TO THE STANDARDS OF INCOME EARNED ON WET LANDS IN INDIA. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JANUARY, 2015. SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 29 TH JANUARY, 2015 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 27, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 16, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, SMC BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.