UJJWALA UTTAM SHINDE ,MUMBAI V. I.T.O, MUMBAI

CO 223/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Mumbai, against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had partially allowed the agricultural income declared by the assessee, Ujjwala Uttam Shinde, for the assessment year 2020-21. The ITO had initially disallowed the entire agricultural income claimed by the assessee under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, which was later partially restored by the CIT(A). Both parties appealed to the tribunal, which examined the evidence and arguments presented, including documents related to land ownership, agricultural activities, and financial transactions supporting the agricultural income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24064 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2024
• Other Referred Cases: ITO vs. M/s Prabhu Dhananjayan (HUF), Shri Madan Mohan Singh vs. ITO, CIT vs. Jarnail Singh (Karta)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR SRAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Business income; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 250; 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1196/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year:2020-21) ITO, Mumbai 622, Piramal chamber Parel, Mumbai-400 012 vs Ujjwala Uttam Shinde Room No.6, 2nd Floor, Bhavsar Building, Parmar Guruji Road Parel, Mumbai-400 012 PAN: BNQPS3156R APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. No.223/Mum/2024 (Arising out of I.T.A. No. 1196/Mum/2024) (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Ujjwala Uttam Shinde Room No.6, 2nd Floor, Bhavsar Building, Parmar Guruji Road Parel, Mumbai-400 012 PAN: BNQPS3156R vs ITO, Mumbai 622, Piramal chamber Parel, Mumbai-400 012 CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal Respondent by : Shri Ashish Kumar (SRAR) Date of hearing : 28/10/2024 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2024 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Instant appeal of the revenue and cross objection by the assessee were filed against the order of the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), 2 ITA No.1196 /Mum/2024 CO 223/Mum/2024 Mrs Ujjwala Uttam Shinde Delhi [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, date of order 17.01.2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Learned Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department, order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 29/09/2022. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the impugned assessment year, assessee filed the return declaring the agricultural income amount to Rs.1,53,93,886/-. The assessee also declared the business income by trading in dry fruits, vegetables, cinnamon sticks, dried Makhana, Mangopoly, cashews, nuts and elaichi, etc. The assessee was involved in growing and selling agricultural products and furnished evidence in shape of bills, sales of crops like kokam,cloves, coconut, vegetables, cinnamon sticks, dried makhana, mango poly, cashew nuts, elaichi and mango during the impugned assessment year. The assessee submitted all relevant documents and supporting evidence in support of her agricultural income claimed. Further, the assessee submitted the banking transactions related sales and payment of expenses for her agricultural activities. The assessment was framed under section 143(3) and the assessment was made with an addition of entire agricultural income of Rs.1,53,93,886/- under section 68 of the Act read with section 115BE of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) considered the submission of the assessee and suo motu allowed @75% of the agricultural income, i.e. amount to Rs.1,15,45,414/- and @25% of the agricultural income was rejected which is amount to Rs.38,48,422/-. Being aggrieved on the appeal order, both assessee and revenue filed an appeal before us. 3 ITA No.1196 /Mum/2024 CO 223/Mum/2024 Mrs Ujjwala Uttam Shinde 3. The Ld.AR vehemently argued and filed a written submission which is kept in the record. The Ld.AR argued that in support of agricultural income, the assessee submitted a certificate dated 24/12/2021 in Marathi language with English translation duly issued by Shri N.S. Bhagyavant, Talathi,. Village Talpatan regarding 1.86 H.R. area is ownership in the name of Shri Santosh Vijaysinh More. The said certificate is annexed in APB pages 188 to 189. The Ld.AR submitted all the relevant documents related to the ownership of land, copy of Gaon Namuna Seven & Gaon Namuna Twelve alongwith translation in English translation in respect of land owned by the assessee and the land taken on lease from Shri S.V. More. As regards the agricultural expenses, the assessee submitted copies of the bill in respect of labour charges amount to Rs.11,52,000/- and land cleaning charges of Rs.2 lakhs and other expenses also. All these supporting documents including the bank transaction and the sale bills related to sale of agricultural products to M/s Triveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Utkal Signature Tower, 3rd Floor, Nh- 5, Paha, Bhubaneshwar and bearing GST Number. 21AABCT6755R1ZP are duly submitted before the ld. AO. The Ld.AR invited our attention in the list of documents which was duly filed before the Ld. AO and the Ld.CIT(A). The said documents are submitted before the Bench also. The list of documents is reproduced as below: - Sl. no. Particulars Page nos. 1. Copy of ITR Acknowledgement for AY 2020-21 4 2. Copy of Computation of Income for AY 2020-21 5 3. Copy of Computation of Income for AY 2020-21 6-8 4. Copy of Lease agreement with land holder (01.03.19 to 31.01.20) 9-11 4 ITA No.1196 /Mum/2024 CO 223/Mum/2024 Mrs Ujjwala Uttam Shinde 5. Copies of sale invoices along with details of the buyer – Name, Address, PAN 12-36 6. Copies of expense invoices 37-173 7. Copy of Sath Baara Utara (7/12 document) which proves that the appellant is a farmer (in Marathi language) 174-179 8. Copies of Gaon Namuna Seven (Record of Rights) issued by Talathi. 180-187 9. Copy of certificate issued by Talathi office certifying That the crops grown by the Appellant [in Marathi language] 188 10. English translated copy of certificate issued by Talathi office Certifying that the crops grown by the appellant 189 11. Details of crops grown, per acre yield, prices at which crops Sold, source of watering for growing crops, fertilizers used for Farming. 190 12. Copy of bank statement showing the receipts on account of Sale of agriculture produce 191-202 4. The Ld.DR vehemently argued and placed that the nature of land is duly described by the AO which is not for agriculture, i.e. ‘raipar’ and the production of the agricultural products is not beyond doubt but Ld.DR was not able to produce any evidence that the Ld.AO had completed verification related to transaction of agricultural income. 5. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. We find that the assessee had submitted all the relevant documents related to production, ownership of the land and nature of the land and the 5 ITA No.1196 /Mum/2024 CO 223/Mum/2024 Mrs Ujjwala Uttam Shinde expenses related to income of agricultural products. There is no dispute that assessee owns 1acre of land and 4acre was in leased. The assessee submitted the certificate issued by Talati Office, issued by Shri N.S.Bhagyaranth Talati. About both the documents Gaon Namuna Seven &Gaon Namuna Twelve issued by the same Talathi office were duly accepted by the ld. AO and had not rejected the same. The Talati Officer has clearly certified that mango and kokam trees are existing on the land leased by assessee since 2012.The sale was made through banking channel and all the relevant documents in support of agricultural income are duly submitted before the Ld.AO. The assessee has shifted her onus of submitting all relevant documents before the revenue. The assessee had complied the requirements U/s 68 of the Act by submitting name, PAN, address, GSTIN of buyer and the buyer is a private limited company so the identity can be found in MCA database. The Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the submission of the assessee. But none of the revenue authorities had taken pain to verify the entire transactions and it seems that documents are deemed to be accepted. Mere, writing of nature of land “raipar” can’t be the reason for rejection of entire transaction when other evidences support the agricultural income. The Ld.AO in assessment order only made his observations and confirmed the additions without carrying out any single verification. When the assessee has submitted all relevant documents, the ld. AO is expected to either accept the evidence or make further inquiries if there are grounds for doubt. If the Ld. AO neither questions the evidence nor conducts an inquiry, it can indicate acceptance of the claims made by the assessee. Once the assessee has discharged their initial burden, the onus shifts to the Ld. AO to disprove or question the evidence. 6 ITA No.1196 /Mum/2024 CO 223/Mum/2024 Mrs Ujjwala Uttam Shinde 6. We find that the Ld.CIT(A) even though examined the documents and appreciated contents of the assessee, yet suo motu basis disallowed 25% of the agricultural income which has no basis at all. No comparable are taken in record to compare the transaction. In relation to this production, no any verification was made for same nature of fact. We find that in the impugned appeal order disallowance of 25% of agricultural income is adhoc and hence unacceptable. The Ld.DR is also unable to submit any contrary facts or contrary judgements against the submission of the Ld.AR. 7. The Ld A.R also relied upon certain case laws to contend that the AO could not disbelieved the agricultural income declared by the assessee on mere conjectures and surmises. (a) In the case of ITO vs. M/s Prabhu Dhananjayan (HUF) (ITA No.1062 to 1067/Chny/2018 dated 10-03-2021), the Chennai bench of Tribunal noticed that the AO has drawn presumptions and disallowed the claim of availability of agricultural income. The Tribunal noticed that the Ld CIT(A) has examined the relevant documents and gave a finding that the assessee had indeed grown the mangoes. Accordingly, the Tribunal accepted the claim of availability of agricultural income. (b) In the case of Shri Madan Mohan Singh vs. ITO (ITA No.459/CHD/2016 dated 29-11-2016), the Tribunal noticed that the assessee had furnished all documents relating to earning of agricultural income, which was not considered by the assessing officer. The Tribunal held that the documentary evidences of revenue officers, when produced before the 7 ITA No.1196 /Mum/2024 CO 223/Mum/2024 Mrs Ujjwala Uttam Shinde authorities below should not have been ignored. In arriving at this conclusion, the Tribunal has taken support of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jarnail Singh (Karta) (316 ITR 160)(P & H). (c) In the case of Jarnail Singh Karta (supra), the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court noticed that the Tribunal had accepted the agricultural income declared by the assessee, since the assessee had produced evidences to support his claim, while the AO had rejected the claim of agricultural income holding the same as high. The order passed by the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court, since the decision rendered by the Tribunal was based on the evidences produced by the assessee. In the instant case also, we noticed that the assessee has furnished all evidences to support the raising of agricultural produce, agricultural expenses and sale of agricultural produce. No contrary material has been brought on record by the AO. We have already held that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in estimating the income without basis. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the agricultural income declared by the assessee should be accepted. Our view is further fortified by the fact that the agricultural income declared by the assessee in the earlier year and subsequent year has been accepted, though the same was lesser than current year’s income. However, the said fact proves that the assessee has been earning agricultural income over the years, though the quantum may differ, which is obviously depends upon the climatic conditions. 8 ITA No.1196 /Mum/2024 CO 223/Mum/2024 Mrs Ujjwala Uttam Shinde 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 196/Mum/2024 dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee bearing C.O. No. 223/Mum/2024is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th day of October, 2024. Sd/- sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,दिन ांक/Dated: 30/10/2024 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रदिव िी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुक्त CIT 4. दवभ गीयप्रदिदनदि, आय.अपी.अदि., मुबांई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. ग र्डफ इल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai "