"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत Ɋायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.520/SRT/2024 (AY 2017-18) (Hearing in hybrid processing) Jesal Jatin Desai Desai Faliya, Balda, TA: Pardi- 396 125 [PAN No: AKFPD 8424 J] बनाम Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Vapi, 7th to Floor,9th Fortune Square, II, Road, Chala, Vapi-396 191 अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ /Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by Ms. Khushbu Bagrecha, CA राजˢ की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 03.05.2024 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 09.10.2024 उद ्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of pronouncement 14.10.2024 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC/Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 22.04.2024 for assessment year 2017-18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.12.2019. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties heard and record perused. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that assessee is an individual, also partners of various firms and proprietor of M/s Jaidev Communications. During the year under consideration, assessee earned income from business, capital gains and from other sources. The assessee while filing his return of income has shown agricultural income of Rs.8,10,470/- and such agricultural income shown for rate purpose. The ITA No.520/SRT/2024 (A.Y 17-18) Jesal J Desai 2 assessee has shown agricultural income from several past assessment years and such agricultural income is accepted without any variation. The assessee has agricultural receipt on account of agricultural income of Rs.11,53,980/- and claimed expenditure of Rs.3,43,510/- and thus showing net agricultural income of Rs.8,10,470/-. The assesse is having agricultural holding of 8.69 acres. The lower authorities have not disputed the area of agricultural land holding by assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed the agricultural income by taking view that assessee has not furnished supporting evidence in the form of bills or invoices for sale of agricultural yield or any bills of expenditure. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that in the agricultural activities, there is no practice of obtaining such receipt. Even otherwise, assessee has shown such agricultural product in local market. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.6,64,800/- in assessment year 2015-16, Rs.7,90,380/- in assessment year 2016-17 and Rs.8,80,420/- in assessment year 2018-19 respectively. The return of income in previous years are placed on record. Copy of agricultural holding is also placed on record. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that in series of decisions of this co-ordinate Bench had allowed agricultural income, wherein the holding of agricultural land is not a dispute. To support her submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions: Vasant Kanji Gala vs. ACIT [ITA No.684 & 685/SRT/2023 dated 31.01.2024] Jatin Ravindranath Desai vs. ITO [ITA No.322/SRT/2024 dated 06.08.2024] 3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee was ITA No.520/SRT/2024 (A.Y 17-18) Jesal J Desai 3 repeatedly asked to furnish the copy of receipt of sale of agriculture produce or any evidence to substantiate that assessee is really involved in agricultural activities. No supporting evidence was furnished by assessee either before Assessing Officer or before Ld.CIT(A). In absence of supporting evidence, the assessee failed to prove his agricultural income. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that mere offering agriculture income ip so facto will not prove that assessee is involved in agricultural income and earned agricultural income. 4. I have considered the contention of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I have also deliberated case law relied upon by Ld. AR of the assessee. I find that Assessing Officer made the addition of agricultural income under section 68 of the Act by taking view that assessee could not furnish any sale invoices or bills of expenditures incurred for doing agricultural activities. The Assessing Officer also held that land holding cannot justify for agricultural income, which was shown in the return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. I find that no independent investigation was carried out by the lower authorities. Holding of agricultural land is not disputed by lower authorities. The sole ground for disallowance of agricultural income and treating the same under section 68 of the Act for the want of vouchers of sale bills or bills of expenditure. I find that assessee is consistently showing his agricultural income in previous assessment years in assessment years 2015-16 and 2016- 17 though, assessee is gradually increasing his agricultural income. Considering the area, size of land holding and assessee is consistently ITA No.520/SRT/2024 (A.Y 17-18) Jesal J Desai 4 showing his agricultural income, out of total income of Rs.5,00,000/- is allowed. The rest of Rs.3,10,470/- is upheld. This ground of assesee’s appeal is partly allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 14th October, 2024. Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) [Ɋाियक सद˟ JUDICIAL MEMBER] सूरत /Surat, Dated: 14/10/2024 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S* आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT आयकर आयुÈत (अपील)/ The CIT(A) ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, सूरत "