ASHA MANJARI MISHRA,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

3.5 The above seed bill makes an interesting reading. The first entry is about one farmer . named Sapana Pradhan of Gunthuni village. The appellant receives the sugarcane seeds from Nayagarh Sugarcane Complex Ltd. in her planting village Panipoila on 06.12.2012 and supplied it to the farmer who planted it on 18.12.2012 in his planting village at Gunthuni. According to the appellant's own written submission-dated 18th November 2016 (which was filed during appeal proceedings of A.Y 2012-13), in which the appellant has explained the agricultural process, it takes 1 to 2 months time for buds and 6 to 12 months time for small plants to develop from the seeds. If this is so, then how could the appellant take supply of the seeds on 06.12.2012 and supply the sugarcane plants on 18.12.2012. All the entries in all the seed bills are of this type. There is hardly any time for the appellant to undertake in agricultural process on the seeds supplied by Nayagarh Sugar Complex Ltd. It is to be further noted that the Nayagarh Sugar Complex Ltd. is located in Balugaon village and the appellant's leasehold land is at Panipoila. The farmers are scattered around Nayagarh Sugar Complex Ltd. Therefore, if the appellant's submission is to be believed then she picks up seeds from Nayagarh Sugar Complex Ltd. in Balugaon, takes them to Paripoila and again brings back the plants to supply to the farmers and also in the meantime, she carries out the agricultural operations to develop plants from seeds. In such a very short time, as it is evident from the seeds bill, this is impossibility.

3.6 Further, it is seen that the Nayagarh Sugar Complex Ltd deducts the sale price of sugarcane seeds from the proceeds payable to the farmers, when they sell sugarcane to the company. The alleged agricultural produce is not sold in the open market area to any independent person.

3.7 It is further seen that the Shri Trailokya Mishra, husband of the appellant is himself a managing director of Nayagarh Sugar Complex Ltd. from the date of inception of the company on 9th August, 2004. He is also the main promoter of Nayagarh Sugar Complex Ltd. Further, he is mariag:r.fc director of Mishra Finance Limited and director of Dharitri Associates Pvt. Ltd. where the appellant is also a director.

3.8 Considering the above aspects, it is clear that the appellant has not conducted any agricultural operations. The transactions between Nayagarh Sugar Complex Ltd. and the appellant are

P a g e 6 | 10 collusive in nature to give colour of agricultural income to the income from other sources.

3.9. The appellant has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited. On perusal of this judgment, it is seen that in that case, the appellant was actually growing basic stock/foundation seeds and, therefore, Hon’ble High Court has treated the sale of such seeds as agricultural income. These are not the facts of the case of the appellant. As it is seen from the above, the appellant has not performed any agricultural operations.

3.10 This issue also came up in the appellant’s case before the Hon’ble ITAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in TIA No.363 & 364/CTK/2015 for A.Y. 2010-11. In ITA No.364/CTK/ one of the issues was whether an amount of Rs.6,49,773/- was an agricultural income of the appellant. Hon’ble Tribunal has held that it is not an agricultural income and dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

3.11 Considering this, the decision of the AO hold that the amount of Rs.17,37,927/- is not an agricultural income, but income from other sources is upheld and the ground of appeals are dismissed.”

reasoning, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer

treating the income as income from other sources as against the

agricultural income claimed by the assessee.

the lower authorities.

authorities.

P a g e 7 | 10

materials available on record, we find that the CIT(A) has followed

the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the

assessment year 2010-2011, wherein, the claim of agricultural

income of the assessee was negated and same was treated as

income from other sources.

assessment year 2013-14 containing 133 pages and for

assessment year 2014-15 containing 163 pages but has not

referred to any of the pages of the paper book during the course

of hearing. Rule 18 of ITAT Rules, 1963 reads as under:

“18. (1)…….. (2) ……. (3)…… (4)…… (5) ……. [(6) Documents that are referred to and relied upon by the parties during the course of arguments shall alone be treated as part of the record of the Tribunal.]

Since the ld A.R. of the assessee has not referred to any of the

documents filed in the paper book, the paper book filed are not

treated as part of record as per the above quoted ITAT Rules.

record to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer as well

P a g e 8 | 10 as the CIT(A) that the appellant received the sugarcane seeds

from Nayagarh Sugarcane Complex Ltd. in her planting village

Panipoila on 06.12.2012 and supplied it to the farmer who planted

it on 18.12.2012 in his planting village at Gunthuni. According to

the appellant's own written submission-dated 18th November 2016

(which was filed during appeal proceedings of A.Y 2012-13), in

which the appellant has explained the agricultural process, it takes

1 to 2 months time for buds and 6 to 12 months time for small

plants to develop from the seeds. If this is so, then how could the

appellant take supply of the seeds on 06.12.2012 and supply the

sugarcane plants on 18.12.2012.

CIT(A) to interfere and the ground of appeal of the assessee is

dismissed for both the assessment years.

Order pronounced on 06/09/2018.

Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 06/09/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS

P a g e 9 | 10 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Smt. Asha Manjari Mishra, 191, Kharvel Nagar, Unit-III, Bhubaneswar

P a g e 10 | 10