MOHAN S. JADHAV (HUF),,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, KOLHAPUR

The only effective ground in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.4,43,270/- treating agricultural income as non-agricultural income.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs.3.37 lakh and odd. In addition, the assessee showed agricultural income as well arising from Soyabeen crop, Coconut sale, Grass and Mangoes. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept the genuineness of the entire amount shown by the assessee on the ground that the assessee had shown agricultural income at higher level. In addition, the AO also did not accept the genuineness of some of the agricultural expenses. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition.

Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the AO has made addition by not accepting part of the agricultural receipts shown by the assessee and also disbelieving part of the agricultural expenses. During the course of assessment proceedings, when the assessee was confronted with the AO’s point of view, the assessee tendered an explanation in writing on 30-03-2015, a copy of which has been placed on record.

The AO, without going into such an explanation in writing, passed the order on that day itself, namely, 30-03-2015. In such letter, the assessee made out a case for not treating the entire amount as agricultural income. Considering the fact that the assessee’s explanation remained unattended both by the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A), I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set-aside and the issue is restored back to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct the AO to decide the issue afresh as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

This appeal is also based on similar facts in as much as the AO did not accept the extent of agricultural income shown by the assessee and made an ad hoc disallowance at 30% and also of certain expenses, which came to be affirmed in the first appeal.

Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the AO has made an ad hoc disallowance by treating certain percentage of the amount as non-agricultural income. The ld. AR contended that for this year as well the AO did not consider the assessee’s explanation nor provide adequate opportunity. It was, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity of hearing be granted to the assessee for enabling him to put forth the evidence in support of the agricultural income and expenses.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.