HASEENA MEHBOOB,CALICUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOZHIKODE

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 144 days in filing the present appeal. It is submitted that the delay had occurred as the Haseena Mehboob appellant was not aware of the order passed by the CIT(A) as the order was served through ITBA portal. The appellant was not in the habit of checking the ITBA portal on regular basis as she is not conversant with computer operations. The appellant had come know of this order passed by the CIT(A) only after receipt of the consequential order passed in October, 2024. The delay is not willful or deliberate. Therefore it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. On a perusal of the averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the CIT(A) grossly erred in estimating the agricultural income at 125% of agricultural income for the immediately preceding year without appreciating the facts of the case in the proper perspective. He further submits that the appellant had submitted bills in respect of sale of agricultural produce to the extent of Rs. 61,54,431/- out of the total agricultural income of Rs. 96,01,431/-. Without considering these evidences, the CIT(A) simply confirmed the addition. He further submits that the AO was not justified in making the addition of the credits in the pass book invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act and the CIT(A) not empowered to confirm the addition under a different section.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arose for our consideration is determination of income from sale of agricultural produce. The material on record clearly indicates that the appellant is an agriculturist growing cops of coffee, coconut and pepper on the land admeasuring 87 acres. The appellant had shown agricultural income of Rs. 83,76,491/- against the gross receipts from agricultural produce of Rs. 96,01,431/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 12,24,940/-. The AO treated the entire gross receipts from agricultural produce of Rs. 96,01,431/- as unexplained money of the assessee. On appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) estimated the agricultural income at 125% of the agricultural income shown in the earlier year, thus estimated the agricultural income for the year under consideration at Rs. 18,57,471/-. Thus he confirmed the addition of Rs. 61,51,431/- as no evidence was placed on record with regard to the expenditure incurred on earning the said agricultural income. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that drawing guidance from provisions of Rule 7B of I.T. Rules, which prescribes the method of computation of income from sale of coffee, 25% of the gross produce may be treated as business income, i.e. Rs. 24,00,358/- and the balance

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.