Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-3, Pune on 06-12-2019 in relation to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The appeal is time barred by 100 days. The assessee has filed the present appeal on 06-07-2020. Prima-facie, it appears that the delay is attributable to covid-19 pandemic period and, therefore, the delay is condoned by virtue of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314.
The assessee is aggrieved by the enhancement in the agricultural income. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction and development. She also derives income from various partnership firms, as a partner, income from house property, income from other sources along with the agricultural income. The assessee declared net agricultural income of Rs.1,30,48,035/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) required the assessee to substantiate the agricultural income.
Out of such income, only a sum of Rs.32,93,587/- was received through cheques. The AO issued notice u/s.133(6) to nine persons, whom the assessee had claimed to have sold agricultural produce in cash, requesting them to submit their replies along with confirmations. Not even a single reply was received. The assessee appeared before the AO and produced an agreement entered into with one such party for sale of agricultural produce amounting to Rs.38,50,000/-. The AO accepted the genuineness of agricultural income to the extent of Rs.32,93,587/- which was received through cheques and Rs.38,50,500/- which was received from a party with whom an agreement was produced before the AO. The remaining amount of Rs.59,04,448/- was held to be taxable u/s.68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had shown income from various products such as Sugarcane, Chikoo, Watermelon, Kharbooj, Coconut, Mango, Pomegranate and Tomato. The assessee showed sale of Pomegranate at Rs.44,39,213/- in cash.
The ld. CIT(A) required the assessee to point out the area on which pomegranate was produced. The assessee furnished such details of area at 1.4 Hectare. Taking note of the average yield of pomegranate in State of Maharashtra by considering Nashik, Solapur, Pune and Dhule between 8 to 14 ton per hectare, the ld. CIT took the average yield at 10 ton per Hectare and computed the crop size of the assessee at 14 ton (1.4 hectare x 10 ton). As against that, the assessee had claimed to have produced pomegranate at 91.213 ton. Considering the extra proceeds at 77.213 ton (91.23 ton – 14 ton), he held that non-agricultural income from sale of pomegranate was Rs.37,57,852/- being the proportionate sale proceeds of extra produce of 77.213 tons claimed by the assessee. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) observed that there was difference in the sale of Tomatoes inasmuch as the assessee had shown sale of Tomatoes at Rs.35,20,840/- by sowing sale of 329 ton. However, from the 7/12 extracts furnished by the assessee, it was noticed that there was no entry of Tomato cultivation. The assessee was called upon to furnish reply in regard to the deficiencies found out by him but there was no response as the assessee did not appear on two dates given by the ld. CIT(A). Similar position was observed by the ld. CIT(A) in the sale of Mango. As a result, he enhanced the addition of Rs.59,04,448/- made by the AO to Rs.1,06,49,032/-.
Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee claimed to have sold the agricultural produce giving net agricultural income at Rs.1.30 crore. This comprised of sum of Rs.32.93 lakh received through cheques and another sum of Rs.38.50 lakh through an agreement entered into with a party, which the AO accepted as genuine. The other amounts were shown to have received in cash and the assessee could not place on record the confirmations from the parties inasmuch as the notices issued u/s.133(6) to all such nine persons remained un-responded.
Similar position prevailed before the ld. CIT(A), who, after noting the deficiencies, issued enhancement notice. The assessee remained unrepresented after issue of such notice. It is further noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has taken produce of pomegranate at 10 ton per hectare on the basis of certain statistics drawn on page 17 of the impugned order, taking average ton/hectare, at 14 ton for Nashik; 8.4 ton for Solapur; 8.99 ton for Pune; and 13.04 ton for Dhule. The source of such figures is not mentioned. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee was handicapped for certain reasons beyond her control to put in appearance before the CIT(A) after notice of the enhancement was issued. A request was made for sending the matter back to the AO for re-deciding the issue. The ld. AR undertook to file fullest possible details to the satisfaction of the AO in support of the agricultural income.
Considering the entire conspectus of the case, we are of the opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. We order accordingly. In such fresh proceedings, the assessee will be given reasonable opportunity of hearing.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16th November, 2022.