RANJIT KANTILAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, SOLAPUR

आदेश / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :

This appeal filed by assessee is emanating out of the order of 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7, Pune dated 29.06.2018 for A.Y. 2015-16.

Assessee is an individual and Partner in M/s. Kruti Infrastructures which is engaged in the business of Building and Development and is also having agricultural income. Assessee

electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on

19.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.22,44,590/- and agricultural

income of Rs.38,65,208/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and

thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order

dated 15.12.2017 and the total income was determined at

Rs.31,04,840/- and agricultural income of Rs.30,04,958/-. Aggrieved

by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who

vide order dt.29.06.2018 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-7/Cir-

2/10254/2017-18) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by

the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the

following effective ground :

“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the honourable CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,60,250/- made by the learned AO by not accepting the claim of the appellant of the agricultural income and treating the same as “Income from Other Sources”. The appellant hereby prays that the addition may please be deleted.”

present appeal. Assessee filed an affidavit wherein he inter-alia

submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal occurred due to

bonafide mistake and it is purely unintentional and therefore prayed

that the delay of one day be condoned. Ld.D.R. did not seriously

object to the prayer of condonation.

through the petition filed by the assessee and heard the Ld.A.R. After

considering the reasons stated in the affidavit, I am of the view that

the delay in filing the appeal has been satisfactorily explained. In view

of these facts, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

assessee was having agricultural land at Gut No.98/A/1/1

admeasuring 5H-06R and another land having Gut No.98/B2

admeasuring 1H-60R (16.46 acres), both being situated at Dongaon.

Assessee is stated to have grown crops like sugar cane, grapes, mango,

jawar etc, (the details of cultivation on the said lands are tabulated by

the AO under Para 5 of the assessment order). Assessee was asked to

produce the details of sales affected along with documentary evidence.

Assessee stated that the sales have been made at the farm site only

and for which he produced self-made bills and vouchers. To verify the

productivity of the corps and the claim made by the assessee, AO

issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to the District Superintendent

Agriculture Officer, Solapur. On the basis of the response received

from District Superintendent Agriculture Officer, AO confirmed the

productivity shown by the assessee and as stated by the District

Superintendent Agriculture Officer, noted that assessee had shown

excess productivity of mangoes which is nearly double the average in

Sholapur in F.Y. 2014-15. The assessee was asked to explain the

difference to which assessee inter-alia submitted that assessee had

cultivated 400 trees in one acre of land but District Superintendent

Agriculture Officer considered only 40 in one acre. It was therefore

submitted that the data supplied cannot be compared with the actual

cultivation of the assessee. The submissions of the assessee were not

found acceptable to the AO. AO held that assessee has over inflated

the productivity details by around 45%. He therefore disallowed the

extra productivity level of 45% above the average computation as given

by District Superintendent Agriculture Officer and re-worked the

excess production of mangoes to the extent of Rs.8,60,250/- and made

its addition. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter

before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal.

and Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that AO has merely relied on the

report of District Superintendent Agriculture Officer. He further

submitted that no verification of the number of trees in the field of the

assessee was undertaken by the AO. He further submitted that

assessee had planted the trees in a unique pattern of 10/10 and

thereby increased the productivity. Ld.A.R. further submitted that AO

has only considered the report of the District Superintendent

Agriculture Officer selectively and to support his contention, he

pointed to the table at Page 3 of the assessment order wherein the

productivity of grapes, pomegranates, jawar etc. cultivated by the

assessee were mentioned and though the same was lower than the

productivity stated by the District Superintendent Agriculture Officer

but it was accepted by the AO. He submitted that without brining any

material on record, AO has made addition on adhoc basis. He therefore

submitted that the addition made by AO be deleted. Ld. D.R. on the

other hand, supported the order of lower authorities.

record. The issue in the present ground is addition on account of

excess production of mangoes. I find that AO has merely relied on the

report of District Superintendent Agriculture Officer for working out

the excess production. Further even on the basis of the report, he has

held that 40% increase in productivity as stated by the Agricultural

Officer is accepted. I find that AO did not carry out any verification of

the agricultural land personally or by through any of his officials to

verify the contentions made by the assessee. It is a fact that assessee

had shown income from mangoes in earlier years which has not been

disturbed by the authorities in earlier years. I am of the view that AO

could not have proceeded to make the disallowance merely on the

basis of report of District Superintendent Agriculture Officer and

without any evidence to the contrary in his possession. I therefore

direct the deletion of addition made by the AO. Thus, the ground of

the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 17th day of October, 2019.

Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 17th October, 2019. Yamini

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. CIT(A)-7, Pune. Pr. CIT-6, Pune. 4. 5 �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक सद�य” / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER

// True Copy //

व�र�ठ �नजी स�चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.