D S DOORS (INDIA) LTD., FARIDABAD V. ITO, WARD- 1(2), FARIDABAD

ITA 853/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7380 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAVETA NAKRA DUTTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAUBHAGYA AGARWAL; NAINCY JAIN S
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 244A; 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO .853 /DE L/ 2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 15 M/S. D S DOORS (INDIA) LTD. C/O - SAUBHAGYA AGARWAL, K - 185/14, SURYA PLAZA, 1 ST FLOOR, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), FARIDABAD PAN : AAACD5805B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SAUBHAGYA AGARWAL & MS. NAINCY JAIN, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY SHAVETA NAKRA DUTTA, SR.DR ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A .M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 29/12/2017 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS), FARIDABAD [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A) ] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 , RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING ENHANCEMENT OF ADDITION AND FURTHER ERRED IN REDUCING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS ACCEPTED BY LD. AO BY RS.8,34,698/ - (I.E. 30% OF RS.27,82,325/ - ) AND THAT TOO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED AD - HOC EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR CARRYING OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATION AND DATE OF HEARING 03.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.01.2019 2 ITA NO. 853/DEL/2018 THAT TOO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,58,064/ - ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THAT TOO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SPECIFIC REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKI NG INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY IN THIS REGARD. 3. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING ENHANCEMENT OF ADDITION WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY STAGE AND ALL THE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. B RIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF WOODEN PRODUCTS I.E. DOORS, WINDOW ETC. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.3, 91,240 / - ALONG WITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,69,40,389/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT COMPLET ED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX A CT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE A CT ) ON 28/12/2016, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 27,82,325/ - AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1, 41,58, 0 64/ - WAS TREATED BY HIM AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED VARIOUS QUERIES INCLUDING EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS AND S ALE PROCEEDS ETC . FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR JUSTIFYING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS 3 ITA NO. 853/DEL/2018 REPRODUCED THE REPLY SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE ON 08/08/2016 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INC OM E FROM SALE OF FIRE - WOOD (RS.34,50,000/ - ); WHEAT (RS.20,40,971/ - ); MUSTARD (RS.13,24,660/ - ); HUSK (RS.35,80,000/ - ); KHARIF CROPS (RS. 31,90,000/ - ); RABI CROPS ( RS. 33,54,758/ - ) ETC. T HE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS CLAIMED TO BE DEPOSITED IN CASH IN BANK ACCOUNTS . IN VIEW OF NO REPLY ON THE ISSUE OF SALE RECEIPTS VIS - - VIS EXPENDITURE INCURRED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN PROVIDED NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE REPLY OF THE QUARRIES RAISED EARLIER. HE AGAIN PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE ON 07/11/2006 REQUESTING SPECIFIC INFORMATION ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THE REPLY DATED 15/11/2016 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REPR ODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THIS REPLY ALSO NO QUANTITATIVE DETAIL AS TO EXPENSES OR THE SALE PROCEEDS WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN ISSUED FRESH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT RAISING QUERIES O N THE ASSESSEE. THE REPLIES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN NUT SHELL , THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE CULTIVATORS AND EXPENSES WERE ALSO INCURRED BY THEM AND THE ASSESSEE SOLD ITS SHARE OF PRODUCES AND RESULTANT RECEIPT WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT AND CLAIME D THE SAME A S AGRICULTURE INCOME . OUT OF THE SU M CLAIMED A S AGRICULTURE INCOME, THE AMOUNT OF RS.27,82, 325/ - HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS RECEIVED FROM PRODUCE SOLD THROUGH J FORMS AND IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE AGRICULTURE INCOME, THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVITS OF VARIOUS PURCHASERS OF THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CARRIED OUT ENQUIRIES FROM INDEPENDENT SOURCES. ON 4 ITA NO. 853/DEL/2018 ENQUIRY FROM THE DY . D IRECTOR OF A GRICULTURE AND FARMERS W ELFARE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED YIELD OF VARIOUS CROPS AND ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED AVERAGE YIELD OF WHEAT. HE FURTHER OBTAINED K HASAR GIRDAWARI FROM THE LAND & R EVENUE DEPARTMENT AND FOUND THAT LARGE CHUNK OF THE LAND REMAINED VACANT DURING KHARIF SEASON AND THERE WAS NO MENTION OF MAKKA , BAJRA AND RI CE CULTIVATION ON THE SAID LAND AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF SALE OF THOSE CROPS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS HAVING TEAM OF SUFFICIENTLY SKILLED EMPLOYEE, STILL IT DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED J FORMS RS.27,82, 325 / - WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH SOME AFFIDAVITS OF THE PURCHASER OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT CROPS WERE SOLD TO THE AGRIC ULTURIST OR FARMERS IN THE VILLAGES, WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING AS UNDER: 8. THE VAGUE CONTENTIONS OF ASSESSEE TRYING TO MAKE OUT A CASE AS THAT OF THE POOR AGRICULTURISTS AS WOULD BE FOUND IN THE VILLAGES, ARE MORE IN THE NATURE OF AN UNSUBSTANTIATED RUSE, WHICH HARDLY BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE ENOUGH FOR ALLOWING SUCH HUGE ALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. GENUINENESS COULD VALIDLY BE TESTED ON THE GROUNDS OF PRINCIPLES OF PREPONDERANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES, WHICH COULD THUS FORM A VALID GROUND OR PARAMETER FOR DETERMINING THE GENUINENESS, STANDS SINCE SETTLED BY THE APE X COURT IN SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) WHEREIN THE APEX COURT, IN DECLARING THE TRANSACTION AS NON - GENUINE, DISCARDED A HOST OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED OR RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE - APPELLANT. THAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ARE NOT BY THEM SELVES CONCLUSIVE, AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER OR THE DOCUMENTS COULD BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF OR ON THE ANVIL OF THE SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IS WELL SETTLED. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, WEST VS DURGA PRASAD MORE 82 ITR 540 OBSERVED THE OFTEN QUOTED FOLLOWING RELEVANT OBSERVATION: 'IT IS TRUE THAT AN APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT, THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL. IN A CASE OF THE P RESENT KIND A PARTY WHO RELIES ON 5 ITA NO. 853/DEL/2018 A RECITAL IN A DEED HAS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITALS OTHERWISE IT WILL BE VERY EASY TO MAKE SELF - SERVING STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS EITHER EXECUTED OR TAKEN BY A PARTY AND RELY ON THOSE RECITALS. IF ALL THAT AN AS SES SEE WHO WANTS TO EVADE TAX IS TO HAVE SOME RECITALS MADE IN A DOCUMENT EITHER EXECUTED BY HIM OR EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR THEN THE DOOR WILL BE LEFT WIDE OPEN TO EVADE TAX. A LITTLE PROBING WAS SUFFICIENT IN THE PRESENT CASE TO SHOW THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT THE REAL. THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE NOT, REQUIRED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE RECITALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS. ' 2.1 THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED AGRICULT URE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 27,82,325 / - AS SALES REFLECTED IN FORM J AND TREATED THE BALANCE AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE RELEVANT CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, I AM CONSTRAINED TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME MADE BY ASSESSEE COMPANY, AT RS. 1,69,40,389/ - AND RESTRICT THE SAME TO THE SALE FIGURES AS PER FORM J OF WHEAT AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,72,409/ - AND SARSON A MOUNTING TO RS.1,46,816/ - AND SALE OF JAWAR KI KADWI CLAIMED AT RS.12,63,100/ - TOTALING RS.27,82,325/ - , AND THE BALANCE OF EXCESS OF AGRICULTURE INCOME CLAIMED AT RS. 1,41,58,064/ - (RS.1,69,40,389/ - - RS.27,82,325/ - ) IS DISALLOWED AND TREATED AS UNACCOUN TED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY INTRODUCED IN GUISE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME BEING BOGUS AGRICULTURE INCOME AND ADDED TO ITS RETURNED INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,58,064/ - IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY U S 68 OF THE INCOME - T AX ACT. I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CONCEALED INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,41,58,064/ - BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. HENCE, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C)/274 READ WITH EXPLANATION - 1 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1, ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY ARE BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS RECOMPUTED AS BELOW: RETURNED INCOME DECLARED RS. 3,91,240/ - ADDITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE RS.1,41,58,064/ - TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME RS.1,45,49,304/ - AGRICULTURE INCOME ASSESSED AS ABOVE RS.27,82,325/ - ASSESSED. CHARGE INTEREST U/S A, 234B, 234D WHEREVER APPLICABLE. WITHDRAW INTEREST U/S 244A WHEREVER APPLICABLE. ISSUE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS. ISSUE PENALTY NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. 2.2 ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ONLY UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT ALSO DISALLOWED 6 ITA NO. 853/DEL/2018 EXPENDITURE AT THE RATE OF 30% AGAINS T THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.27,82, 325 / - CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ENHANCED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME BY WAY OF AMOUNT OF RS.8,34, 698/ - AND TH US MAKING TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,49,92, 762/ - . THE LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF AGRICULTURE INCO ME AND THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SOLD TO 62 AGRICULTURIST AND ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.3 IN RESPECT OF THE SALES SHOWN TO HAVE THROUGH J FORMS AMOUNTING TO RS.27,82, 325/ - , THE LD. CIT(A) ISSUED SHOW CAUSE T O THE ASSESSEE A S WHY THE CORRESPONDING EXPENSES AT THE RATE OF 30% MIGHT NOT BE DISALLOWED. REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE DISALLOWED THE CORRESPONDING EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,34,698/ - AND ENHANCED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME BY THIS AMOUNT MAK ING THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE ON THE ISS UE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME TO RS.1,49,92, 762/ - . 2.4 AGAINS T THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL , RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 217 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AFFIDAVITS OF THE 62 PERSONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) REGARDING THE CLAIM OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO THEM. HE REFE RRED TO PAGE 207 OF THE PAPER BOOK , WHICH IS A COPY OF SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REPLY AT POINT NO. 9, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT CAN PRODUCE ALL THOSE PERSONS AT ITS OWN COST FOR VERIFICAT ION OF THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCES SOLD. BEFORE US, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT LOWER 7 ITA NO. 853/DEL/2018 AUTHORITIES, HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION WITHOUT EXAMINING THOSE 62 PERSONS. THE LD. COUNSEL UNDERTOOK BEFORE US FOR PRODUCING ALL THE PERSONS FOR VERIFICATION OF AVERMENTS MADE IN THEIR AFFIDAVIT S AND TO JUSTIFY THE AGRICULTURE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT CASE MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING A FRESH AFTER EXAMINING THE 62 PERSONS, WHICH WILL BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THOSE AFFIDAVITS WERE SELF - SERVING DOCUMENTS AND MANY DEFICIENCIES IN THOSE AFFIDAVITS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDING TO HER, THERE ARE OTHER INCONSISTENCIES AND ENQUIRI ES, WHICH SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE CASE , THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARD ING AGRICULTURE INCOME IS THAT LAND WAS CULTIVATED BY THE LABOURERS AND THEY HAVE BEEN PAID IN KIND AS PART OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN S A L E OF P A R T OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE LEFT TO IT , AS IT S AGRICULTURE INCOME . THE ASSESSEE S CLA IM IS THAT NO EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY IT . THE ASSESSEE HAS S H OWN SALES OF AGR ICULTURAL PRODUCE LIKE WHEAT , SARSON , J AWAR KI KADWI AMOUNTING TO RS.27,82, 325/ - THROUGH J FORMS AND BALANCE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IS CLAIMED A S SOLD TO AGRICULTUR IST IN CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME BY WAY OF SALES THROUGH J FORM BUT REJECTED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME EARNED THROUGH SALES TO AGRICULTURIST AMOUNTING TO RS.1,41,58,0 64. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS 8 ITA NO. 853/DEL/2018 ALSO DISALLOWED EXPENS ES OF RS.8,34, 698/ - AGAINST AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SOLD THROUGH J FORM . WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE LD. CI T(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER: 1 . T HERE IS SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN AGRICULTURE INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION (RS. 1,69,40,389/ - ) AS COMPARED TO AGRICULT URE INCOME IN PRECEDING YEARS ( AY : 2013 - 14 RS. 40,39,514/ - ; AY : 2012 - 13 RS. 22,07,995/ - ; AY 2011 - 12 RS. 3,45,150/ - ) . 2 . N O DETAILS OF CROPS PLANTED AND SOLD ON THE LAND AND ACRE YIELD WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3 . SIXTY TWO AFFIDAVIT S OF THE BUYERS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCED HAVE BEEN NOTARIZED ON 4 DIFFERENT DATES BY A COMMON NOTARY . 4 . THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE PURCHASER STATES THAT AGRICULTURE PRODUCED HAD BEEN BROUGHT BY THEM FOR CONSUMPTION OF OWN FAMILY MEMBERS AND LARGE NUMBER OF A NIMALS, WHEREAS THEY THEMSELVES ARE AGRICULTURISTS. 5 . NO JUSTIFICATION OF HIGH YIELD OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCED SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE AGRICULTURIST OF THE SAME AREA IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS CLAIMED OF NOT HAVING ENOUGH CROPS TO SUSTAIN THE FAMILY AND ANIMAL S. 6 . AGRICULTURE PRODUCE HAVE BEEN SOLD EVERY WEEK TO NEW AGRICULTURIST OR FARMERS AT ASTRONOMICAL PRICES. 7 . THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT TO LABOURER THROUGH BARTER SYSTEM WAS NOT FOUND TO BE BELIEVABLE. 8 . THE PAYMENTS OF ELECTRICITY, WATER, SEEDS, PESTICIDES, INSECTIC IDES ETC EXPENSES NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9 . HUGE DI FFERENCE IN AGRICULTURE PRODUCE PER ACRE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DETAILS OF PER ACRE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE 9 ITA NO. 853/DEL/2018 COLLECTED FROM AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT FOR THE SAME GEOGRAPHICAL AREA. 10 . CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT NOT A PROOF OF AGRICULTURE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. BEFORE US, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED OF RS.27,82,325/ - AND ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THOSE SIXTY TWO PERSONS TO WHOM IT HAS CLAIM ED TO HAVE SOLD THE AG RICULTURE PRODUCE HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS POINTED OUT VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND EXPLAIN THE SAME. ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUST ICE. WE AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THOSE PERSONS REGARDING VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION ON THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS UNDERTAKEN TO PRODUCE ALL THE PERSON S BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTIOUS MADE IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS. IN VIEW OF THE UNDERTAKING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO P RODUCE ALL THOSE PERSONS FOR EXAMINATION, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING A FRESH AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE EVIDENCE S ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE RESULT OF EXAMINATION OF THE PERSONS WHICH WILL BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS THE NUMBERS OF PERSONS TO BE EXAMINED ARE LARGE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO START PRODUCING THE PERSONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER AND PRODUCE ALL THE PERS ONS WITHIN 3 MONTHS THEREAFTER. THE ASSESSEE SHALL DRAW 10 ITA NO. 853/DEL/2018 A LIST OF PERSONS WHICH WILL BE PRODUCED ON EACH WORKING DAY AND PROVIDE SUCH LIST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADVANCE. THE ASSESSEE WILL CARRY OUT EXAMINATION IN CHIEF AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL CROSS - EXAMINE THOSE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MAY ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY O F RE - EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSEE OR ITS COUNSEL IF SO REQUIRED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY CARRY OUT ANY OTHER ENQUIRIES, WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE. THE RESULT OF ENQUIRIES IF ANY SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REBUTTING ANY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE ENQUIRY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER OVERALL APPRECIATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCES WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AN D WHICH WOULD BE COLLECTED IN RESTORED PROCEEDINGS OR PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND S OF THE APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 T H JANUARY, 2019 . S D / - S D / - [ BHAVNESH SAINI ] [O.P. KANT] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 9 T H JANUARY, 2019 . RK / - [D.T.D.S] COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI