SWAPNIL DATTATRAYA VALVI,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (2),, KOLHAPUR

आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : These two appeals by different but connected assessees relate to the assessment year 2011-12. Since the facts/grounds are common in these appeals, I am, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Briefly stated, the facts in the case of Shri Sonal Dattatraya Valvi are that he furnished a return declaring, inter-alia, agricultural income of Rs.20,08,947/-. For the reasons given in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not accept the genuineness of the claim of agricultural income amounting to Rs.13,84,486/-, being a sum of Rs.9,04,922/- and another sum of Rs.4,79,564/-. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the claim of assessee qua the sum of Rs.9,04,922/- and sustained the addition of Rs.4,79,564/-. The assessee is aggrieved by the sustenance of the addition. 3. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. No material has been brought on record by the ld DR to demonstrate that the relief allowed by ld. CIT(A) has been challenged by the Revenue in the second appeal. In so far as the grievance of the assessee in relation to the confirmation of the addition amounting to Rs.4,79,564/- is concerned, it is seen that the assessee claimed to have earned this much agricultural income from sale of onions. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition because the assessee could not place on record enough evidence to substantiate the earning of income, more specifically, there was no evidence of having transported so much of onions. The ld. AR submitted that 7/12 extracts amply show growing of onions. It was, therefore, candidly submitted that a direction may be given to allow the claim of agricultural income as per the standard yield determined by the competent authority at the relevant time. The ld. DR did not raise any serious objection to the same. In view of the above said factual panorama, I of the considered opinion that it will be just and fair if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the AO. I order accordingly and direct him to find out the standard yield of onion at the relevant point of time. By considering the landholding of the assessee vis-à-vis the standard yield, the extent of agricultural income from onion be accepted after deduction of expenses in this regard.

Sd/- R.S. SYAL उपाध्यक्ष /VICE-PRESIDENT ऩुणे / Pune; ददनधंक / Dated : 6th February, 2020. GCVSR

आदेश की प्रतिलिपप अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱधथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent 2. 3. The CIT (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur. 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Kolhapur. 5. ववभधगीय प्रनतननधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “एक-सदस्य” बेंच, ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गधर्ा फ़धइऱ / Guard File. 6.

आदेशधनुसधर / BY ORDER, //True copy//

वररष्ठ ननजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune