POMONA FARMS & PRODUCTS,KOLKATA V. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA

ITA 1940/KOL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Pomona Farms & Products, the appellant, contesting the addition of \\u20b923,59,540 to their income, which was deemed as bogus agricultural income by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT (A). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had previously been allowed similar agricultural income in earlier assessment years and had provided adequate evidence of ownership and agricultural activities on the land. The Tribunal found the addition of income by the AO to be without basis and allowed the appeals, directing the deletion of the contested addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126893 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MADHUMITA DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL SURANA
• Keywords: Set aside; Bogus; National Faceless Appeal; Exempt; Department

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM ITA No. 1939 & 1940/KOL/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Pomona Farms & Products 304, Marshel House, 25, Strand Road, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001 Vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 34, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700107 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADFP7967Q Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, AR Revenue by : Shri Madhumita Das, DR Date of hearing: 16.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 03.05.2024 for the AY 2018-19. ITA No. 1939/KOL/2024 02. Since, the issue involved in both these appeals is common and the appeals relates to the same assessee, therefore, these appeals are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 03. At the outset, we observed that there is a delay of 77 days in filing the appeals by the assessee for which the condonation petitions along with the affidavits were filed before us. Page | 2 ITA Nos. 1939 & 1940 /KOL/2024 Pomona Farms & Products; A.Y. 2017-18 04. After hearing the rival contention and perusing the contents of the affidavit, we are of the view that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and accordingly, the same is condoned for the purpose of deciding these appeals. We are taking ITA No. 1939/Kol/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 as lead case for the purpose of taking the facts. 05. The only issue raised is against the confirmation of addition of ₹23,59,540/- by ld. CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of bogus agricultural income. 06. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 23.03.2018, declaring total income at ₹ nil while claiming that the agricultural income of ₹23,59,540/- as exempt. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, the statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and were also replied by the assessee. The assessee is owner of agricultural land qua which the evidences were placed before the ld. AO in the current year as well as in the earlier assessment years. The ld. AO has accepted the agricultural income in the A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 and the copies of the assessment orders are available in the paper book. However, during the year, the ld. AO treated the income from agriculture as bogus and added the same to the income of the assessee. 07. In the appellate proceedings, there was no representation on the part of the assessee resulting into passing an ex-parte order filed by the appellate authority. 08. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is owner of agricultural land for which the necessary details/evidences were filed before the ld. Assessing Officer. Admittedly, there is no dispute as to the ownership Page | 3 ITA Nos. 1939 & 1940 /KOL/2024 Pomona Farms & Products; A.Y. 2017-18 of the agricultural land of the assessee and in A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006- 07, even in the assessments framed u/s 143(3), the department has accepted the agricultural income from the said land. We note that in A.Y. 2006-07, the agricultural income was accepted at ₹64,28,220/- and in for A.Y. 2005-06, the agricultural income was ₹1,89,07,751/-. Even during the year, the assessee has produced a certificate from the local revenue authority certifying the land to be Adangal, which means agricultural land and also specifies the produce cultivated and grown by the assessee. Considering these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the addition made by the ld. AO is without any basis. Consequently, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 1940/KOL/2024 09. The issue raised in this appeal is similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. 1939/KOL/2024. Accordingly, our decision would, mutatis mutandis, apply to this appeal of assessee in ITA No.1940/KOL/2024. Hence, the appeal of assessee is allowed. 010. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.04.2025. Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 24.04. 2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Page | 4 ITA Nos. 1939 & 1940 /KOL/2024 Pomona Farms & Products; A.Y. 2017-18 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "