Sh. Jeewan Kumar Goyal, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 794/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8311 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 794/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI JEEWAN KUMAR GOYAL, VS THE DCIT, 1011/5, DEEP NAGAR, CIRCLE-VII, CIVIL LINES, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAVPG4320N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-3 LUDHIANA DATED 04.03.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,75,000/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFIC ER BY TREATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AS 'INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES'. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO. 3, SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2 4. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IS WHETHER AGRICULTURE INCOME COULD BE TREATED AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES'. 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE COMPUTATION CHART SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A SUM OF RS. 12,49,420/- AS AGRICULTURE IN COME. VIDE LETTER DATED 29.10.2009 THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUI RED TO GIVE LOCATION OF THE LAND, PROOF OF THE OWNERSHI P, TOTAL AREA UNDER CULTIVATION THE CROPS SOWN AND THE EXPEN SES AS ALSO THE NET AGRICULTURE INCOME OUT OF THE AGRIC ULTURE OPERATIONS. VIDE LETTER DATED 06.11.2009 THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS 3.5 ACRE OF LAND UNDER CULTIV ATION AND HE HAS CULTIVATED ' MUSLY SEEDS' DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A SUM OF RS.2,25,000/- WAS SPENT AND THE NET AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 12,49,420/- WAS EARNED OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE VER ACITY OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AS CLAIMED, AN INQUIRY WAS MADE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTER JAGRAON WHO WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE COPY OF THE 'KHASA GIRDARWRI' WHICH GIVES THE DETAILS OF CROP SOWN/HARVESTED BY T HE LAND OWNER ON THE AGRICULTURE LAND DURING THE SPECI FIED PERIOD. THE SCRUTINY OF THE 'KHASRA GARDAWARI' REVE ALED THAT ACTUALLY THE CROPS OF POTATO OR RICE OR WHEAT WERE GROWN ON THE SAID LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS 'KHASA GIRDAWRI' AND GIVEN SHO W CAUSE NOTICE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY ADDITION OF RS. 3 14,75,000/- MAY NOT BE MADE TO ITS TAXABLE INCOME O N ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME INTRODUCED IN THE GAR B OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. VIDE REPLY DATED 27.11.2009 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HE FAILED TO MENTION IN THE EARLIER LETTER DATED 06.11.2009 THAT' MUSLY SEEDS' WERE CULTIVATED IN ASSESSEE'S LAND AT VILLAGE JAINPUR ALSO. THE ASSESS EE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THEREIN THE CULTIVATION OF LAND AT VILLAGE JAINPUR AND GORSAIN KADARBAKSH AND ALSO HAVING SPENT SOME AMOUNTS FOR THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF T HE PLOTS. 5(I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT : I) THE ASSESSEE NEVER DENIED THAT 'MUSLI SEEDS' WERE NOT GROWN IN VILLAGE GORSAIN KADARBAKSH WHICH HAS BEEN PROVED TOTALLY FALSE IN THE FACE OF THE 'KHASRA GIRDAWARI' OBTAINED JROM. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED. II) ASSESSEE'S CHANGED VERSION IS CLEARLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND IS ONLY AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO WRIGGLE OUT OF THE SITUATION ARISING OUT OF ITS FALSE STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT HE HAS CULTIVATED 'MUSLI SEEDS' IN VILLAGE GORSAIN KADARBAKSH. III) EVEN OTHERWISE NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO THE AREA UNDER CULTIVATION, THE EXPENSES FOR THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION SUCH AS TILLING, SOWING HARVESTING TO MAKE THE PRODUCE MARKETABLE. IV) NO EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF BILL VOUCHERS HAS BEEN FURNISHED WITH REGARDS TO THE EXPENSES OF THE SEEDS. V) AN AFFIDAVIT WAS ALSO FILED AT THE LATER STAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME 4 IS INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN FILED SUO-MOTO AND ASSESSEE WAS NEVER ASKED FOR THE SAME AND CONTAINS NOTHING MORE THAN A SELF SERVING STATEMENT. MORE SO AN AFFIDAVIT IS NOT EVIDENCE PER SE IN VIEW OF THE WELL ACCEPTED LEGAL POSITION. VI) AN INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE PAU, LUDHIANA, A PIONEER INSTITUTION IN THE FIELD OF AGRICULTURE, TO KNOW WHETHER CULTIVATION OF 'MUSLI SEEDS' IS ECONOMICALLY VIABLE IN PUNJAB. THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY HAS VERIFIED THAT CULTIVATION OF MUSLI SEEDS IS NOT RECOMMENDED IN LUDHIANA DISTRICT. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION DISCUSSED I N FOREGOING MAKING A STATEMENT ABOUT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT VILLAGE GORSAIN AND THEN BACKTRACKING WHE N CONFRONTED WITH THE RECORD OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES A ND MAKING ANOTHER STATEMENT, FAILURE TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR HAVING THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME AND THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL AUTHORITIES, IF SEEN IN TOTALITY IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DURGA PARSHAD MORE, THE CONCLU SION IS INESCAPABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE GARB OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND AS SUCH THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS IS NOT EXPLAINED , SAME IS, THEREFORE, HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY AN ADDITION OF RS. 14,75,0007 - WAS THEREFORE MADE TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 6. THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE L D. CIT(APPEALS) WHICH WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; I) AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI AMRIK SINGH S/O SHRI HARBHAJAN SINGH II) BANK CERTIFICATES OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MODEL TOWN, LUDHIANA. 7. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ADMITTED THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXA MINE THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WITH REFERENCE TO ASSESS EE'S CLAIM OF GENUINENESS OF AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT WHICH IS QUOTED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS REPORTED THAT SHRI AMRIK SINGH S/O SHRI HARBHAJN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TALWARA HAS ATT ENDED PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORD ED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT ON OATH IN WHICH HE HAS CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD CULTIVATED SAFED MUSLI AND ST EVIA IN VILLAGE GURSIAN ON THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. COPY OF THE STATEMEN T WAS FORWARDED WITH THE REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AS REGARDS VERIFICATION OF THE SECOND EVIDE NCE, ISSUED NOTICE TO THE MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MODEL TOWN, LUDHIANA WHO HAD SANCTIONED LOAN TO ASSESSEE FOR CULTIVATION OF SAFED MUSLI AND IN CONFIRMATION TO THE ABOVE, HE HAS ENCLOSED COPY OF THE APPLICATION/SANCTION LETTER AND BANK STATEMENT OF 6 ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.01.2006 TO 08.12.2012. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 8. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN VIEW OF THE REMAND REPOR T OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER DIRECTED THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT SINCE HE HAS ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVID ENCES AND YOU (A.O.) HAVE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT MUSLI SEEDS WERE CULTIVATED ON 3.5 ACRES OF LAND OW NED BY HIM, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSESSEE'S CLAIM TH AT HE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURE INCOME FROM 3.5 ACRES OF LAN D OWNED BY HIM IS PRIMA-FACIE CORRECT. HOWEVER, THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SILENT REGARDING QUANTU M OF AGRICULTURE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THIS LAND. 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DIREC TIONS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER SUBMITTED HIS REMAN D REPORT WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER REPORTED THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SALES OF AGRICULTURE PRODU CE VIDE VARIOUS BILLS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE BILLS SUBMITTED WERE REGAR DING SALE OF SAFED MUSLI. THE PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS H AVE BEEN PRODUCED BUT THE PERSON TO WHOM SALE WAS MADE, HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER HIS SEARCH ON INTERNET AND WEBSITE NOTED THAT EXPEN SES PER ACRE HAVE BEEN TAKEN AT RS. 2,50,000/- AND EARN ING 7 AT RS. 6,50,000/- , MEANING THEREBY SHOWING PROFIT OF RS. 4 LACS PER ACRE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, R EPORTED THAT EXPENSES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LESSER THER EFORE, RS. 4 LACS PER ACRE INCOME COULD BE CONSIDERED. 10. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 3.7 OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3.7 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION S OF THE APPELLANT AND FACTS OF THE CASE ON RECORD. THE FOLL OWING FACTS EMERGE FROM RECORDS :- (A) THE ASSESSEE HAS 3.5 ACRES OF LAND AT VILLAGE GORS AIN KADARBAKSH, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE CULTIVATED 'SAFED MUSLI'. AS PER 'KHASRA GIDAWARI' OF THIS LAND, POTATO, RICE, WHEAT AND STEVIA WAS CULTIVATED ON THIS LAND. THE REVENUE RECORD DONOT SHOW CULTIVATION OF ANY 'S AFED MUSLI' ON THIS LAND. IN THIS REGARD, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED I N THE FORM OF BANK LOAN OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK FROM WHERE A LOAN OF RS. 5 LAKH WAS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. AS PER BANK STATEMENT O F PNB, AS ON 01.04.2006 LOAN OUTSTANDING OF PNB WAS RS. 1, 87,190/- AND AS ON 31.03.2007 IT WAS RS. 1,42,455/-. DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ON 26.11.2012, THE ASSES SING OFFICER RECORDED A STATEMENT OF ONE SH. AMRIK SINGH OF VILLA GE TASWARA, WHO IN HIS STATEMENT STATED THAT HE WAS DO ING AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES ON THE VILLAGE LAND AT A SALA RY OF RS. 8,000/-PER MONTH. HE STATED THAT HE CULTIVATED STEVIA AND 'SAFED MUSLI' ON THE LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT DID NOT ASKJIIM HOW ONE SINGLE PERSON CARRIED AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE LA BOUR INTENSIVE. 8 THE STATEMENT IS RECORDED IN ENGLISH. NO SPECIFIC QUE STIONS WERE ASKED IN THE STATEMENT REGARDING AGRICULTURAL ACTIV ITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT AGRICULTURE INCOME WAS EARN ED FROM SALE OF 'SAFED MUSLI'. THE REVENUE RECORDS SHOW PRODUCTION OF POTATO, RICE , WHEAT, STEVIA, WHILE AS PER STATEMENT OF SH. AMRIK SINGH, STEVIA AND SAFED MUSLI WAS CULTIVATED. AS PER DETAILS SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS EARNED FROM THE SAL E OF 'SAFED MUSLI' ONLY. NO SALE OF RICE, POTATO, WHEAT OR STEVIA HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE DETAILS SUBMIT TED BY HIM. (B) SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE WAS OWNER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE JAINPUR AND CULTIVATED ' SAFED MUSLI' ON 2.75 ACRES OF LAND AT VILLAGE JAINPUR. AS PER TH E REPORT OF PATWARI 'SFED MUSLI' WAS CULTIVATED ON THIS LAND, HOWE VER THIS LAND IS COVERED WITH 'CHARDIWARI', AS REPORTED IN T HE REVENUE RECORDS. (C) AS REGARDS PURCHASE OF SEEDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAI MED THAT TWO QUINTALS OF SEEDS WERE PURCHASED IN CASH F OR RS. 80,000/- ON 28.05.2004. (D) THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIE S, AS PER BILLS BROUGHT ON RECORD, AS UNDER ; I) PVC PIPES : RS. 43,260/- ON 29.03.2005 II) FERTILIZER RS. 7,000/- ON 20.08.2006 RS. 36,856/- ON 25.07.2006 III) HDPE PIPES RS. 720/- PM 01.05.2004 IV) CARTONS RS. 9000/- ON 31.03.2005 V) CENTRIFUGAL AGRI SUB-PUMP RS. 8000/- ON 01.05.2004 9 EXCEPT PURCHASE OF FERTILIZER NO EXPENDITURE WAS INC URRED ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES DURING F.Y. 2006-07. (E) THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT HE SOLD RS. 2,95,000 /- TUBES OF MUSLI @ RS. 5 PER TUBE DURING THE MONTH OF JULY, 2006. THE ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM SALES WERE MADE ARE NOT SPECIFIC OR COMPLETE, THEY DON'T CONTAIN HOME NO. ETC. (F) AS PER REVENUE RECORDS, IT IS SAID THAT 'SAFED MUSL I' WAS CULTIVATED DURING THE YEAR IN VILLAGE JAINPUR ON 2. 75 ACRES OF LAND. AS PER REPORT OF PUNJAB AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, LUDH IANA OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, 'SAFED MUSLI' IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CULTIVATION IN LUDHIANA DISTRICT. AS PER BOOKLET ON 'GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES FOR ' SAFED MUSLI' ISSUED BY ICAR - DIRECTORATE OF MEDICINAL AND AROMAT IC PLANTS RESEARCH BORIAVI ANAND-GUJARAT, PLANTING OF 'SAFED MUSLI' IS DONE DURING THE MONTH OF JUNE-JULY DEPENDING ON THE ONSET OF MONSOON. THE BEST TIME FOR PLANTING BASED ON SPROUT ING PERCENTAGE OF THE DORMANT BUDS IS DURING 25 TH JUNE TO 5 TH JULY. THE CROP IS READY FOR HARVEST AFTER FOUR MONTHS OF PLANTING IN OCTOBER. ROOTS ARE ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN THE SOIL AND H ARVESTED IN THE MONTH OF MARCH - APRIL BY DIGGING THE ROOTS. THE WHOLE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IS LABOUR INTENSIVE , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT USE ANY LABOUR FOR CULTIVATION. THE LAND IN LUDHIANA DISTRICT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR CULTIVATION O F 'SAFED MUSLI', EVEN THEN THE ASSESSEE DID ITS CULTIVATION, THAT TO O WITHOUT INCURRING EXPENDITURE ON CULTIVATION EXCEPT THE FER TILIZERS AND NO EXPENDITURE ON LABOUR. WHILE THE PRODUCT IS PLANTED IN THE MONTHS OF JUNE-J ULY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE TUBES OF SAFED MUSLI' DURING T HE MONTH OF JULY ITSELF. TUBES OF 'SAFED MUSLI' WILL BE READY O NLY IN THE MONTHS OF FEBRUARY OR MARCH FOR SALE. IT IS NOT KNO WN HOW THE PRODUCE WAS SOLD IN THE MONTH OF JULY WHICH WAS THE PLANTING TIME AND NOT THE HARVESTING TIME 10 (G) THE WHOLE DISCUSSION BRINGS OUT THE ISSUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS JUST INTRODUCED HIS OWN FUNDS INTO HIS BOOKS BY GIVING THE NAME OF AGRICULTURAL PROCEEDS. EVEN THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF SOME AGRICULTURE] LAND, BUT HE HIMSELF HAS STATED THAT DURING THE YEAR HE EARNE D AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE SALE OF 'SAFED MUSLI ONL Y. THE ABOVE STATED FACTS BRING ON RECORD THAT SAFED MUSLI COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED OR SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED BY HIM. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE EARNED AGRICULT URAL INCOME IS REJECTED AND ADDITION OF RS. 14,75,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 11. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF TH E VIEW ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED TO HAVE CULTIVATED MUSLI SEEDS IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAN D FIELD. THE ASSESSEE, AS REGARDS THE DETAILS NOTED IN THE K HASRA GIRDAWARI EXPLAINED THAT MUSLI SEEDS WERE CULTIVATE D IN ASSESSEE'S LAND AT VILLAGE JAINPUR AND GURSAIN KADARBAKSH. THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI A MRIK SINGH WHO WAS SUMMONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UN DER SECTION 131, HE HAS CONFIRMED TO HAVE CULTIVATED TH E LAND OF ASSESSEE FOR SAFED MUSLI. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FIL ED EVIDENCE FROM THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK WHO HAVE REPORTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THEY HAVE SANCTIONED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CULTIVATING SAF ED MUSLI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, IN PRINCI PLE ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF CULTIVATING S AFED MUSLI IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S), HOWEVER, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REPORT T HE 11 QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSE E AND IN HIS FORWARDING LETTER, AS NOTED IN PARA 3.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO MENTIONED THA T ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT MUSLI SEEDS WERE CULTIVATED ON 3.5 ACRES OF LAND OW NED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, NOTED THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM T HAT HE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURE INCOME FROM 3.5 ACRES OF LAN D OWNED BY HIM IS PRIMA-FACIE CORRECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO REPORT QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN HIS FURTHER REMAND REPORT REPORTED TO TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT AS PER THE CALCULATION, THE PROFI T PER ACRE MAY BE CONSIDERED AT RS. 4 LACS. LD. CIT(A) IN HIS FINDINGS ALSO NOTED THAT AS PER REPORT OF PATWARI SAFED MUSLI WAS CULTIVATED ON 2.75 ACRES OF LAND AT VILL AGE JAUNPUR. IT SUPPORT EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE MADE BE FORE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11(I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS FURTHER REMAND REPORT REPORTED TO THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT AS PER THE CALCULATION, THE PROFIT PER ACRE MAY BE CONSIDERED AT RS. 4 LACS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF THE NO TICES ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, DETAILS OF AGRICULTURE INCOME, COPY OF THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURE INCOME E ARNED ON SELLING SAFED MUSLI SUPPORTED BY COPIES OF THE S ALE BILLS. THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THREE BILLS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE AND SALE CONSIDERATION OF TWO BILLS WERE 12 RECEIVED THROUGH CASH. THE AMOUNT HAVE BEEN DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE EVIDENC ES ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S) WHILE REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CL EARLY PROVED THAT ASSESSEE EARNED AGRICULTURE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CULTIVATING SAFED MUSLI. WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE PRIM A- FACIE CORRECT, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY REASON TO RE JECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) MERELY GOING INTO THE DETAILS OF KHASRA GIRDAWARI AND ALSO THE R EPORT OF PUNJAB AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY THAT SAFED MUSLI IS N OT RECOMMENDED FOR CULTIVATING IN REGION OF LUDHIANA, REJECTED CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. REASONS GIVEN BY L D. CIT(APPEALS), WOULD NOT HAVE MUCH RELEVANCE AS AGA INST THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD, PARTICULARLY WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(APPEALS) HIMSELF HAVE ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF EARNING AGRIC ULTURE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CULTIVATION OF SAFED MUSLI. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED DETAILS OF EARNING AGRICULT URE INCOME IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL AS IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFORE, IT IS ADMIT TED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD A HISTORY OF EARNING AGRICUL TURE INCOME. 13 11(II) ON THE FACE OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW, AUTHORITIES BELO W WERE UNJUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AS 'IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE ORDER S OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HOLD THAT ASSESSEE EARNED AGRICULTURE INCOME ON CULTIVATING AND SELLING SAFED MUSLI. THE ADDITION IS, THEREFORE, UNCALLED FOR. SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 7 TH FEBRUARY,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH