MUNIR AHMED SHAIKH ,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BHARUCH

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not admitting the additional evidence i.e., certificate of gram panchayat, Abheta with regard to carrying out agricultural activities on the rented area of land of 11.87 hectares. The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that this additional evidence 2 Munir A.Shaikh was filed by the appellant to him under rule 46A of the IT Rule after obtaining from gram panchayat which is a government body. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly violated the principle of natural justice by rejecting such vital evidence which has direct bearing on merit of the case.

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in making the addition of Rs.24,80,726/- to the total income of the assessee as such addition has been made without bringing any material on record and merely on presumption basis. This addition of Rs.24,80,72/- being bad in law be deleted.

7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the aforesaid ground or grounds if necessary.”

2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the assessee submits that assessee is farmer engaged in agricultural activities. For assessment year, 2018-19, the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 62,970/- . In the computation of income, assessee has shown net agricultural income at Rs.36,28,010/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny on the issue of agricultural income. During assessment, assessee explained that only source of income of assessee is agricultural income and to substantiate such agricultural income, he furnished bills of sugarcane, bank statement and record of landholding and such evidences were taken on record by Assessing Officer. However, Assessing Office rejected the contention of assessee and allowed agricultural income of Rs.11,47,284/- for rate purpose. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.24,80,726/- on account of excess claimed of exempt income, the Assessing Officer has not considered the area of land, assessee has taken land on rent from various persons for agricultural purpose and furnished evidence during assessment. The assessee was having 8.87 3 Munir A.Shaikh hectare of land, copy of evidence of such land holding was filed along with reply dated 08.03.2021. The Assessing Officer considered land holding of 4.04 hectare and on the basis of rate of Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, computed revenue from agriculture operation to the extent of Rs.11,47,284/- only. Aggrieved by the addition made in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before Ld.CIT(A), assessee along with his submission filed requisite evidence. The assessee also filed application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 along with certain additional evidence. By way of additional evidences, the assessee filed certificate of Gram Panchayat, certifying that assessee was carrying agricultural activities on land taken on rent of 11.87 hectare. The additional evidence was not admitted by Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. AR of the assessee further submits that to substantiate his agricultural income, assessee furnished bank statement, extract 7/12, bills of sugarcane and certificate of Gram Panchayat, Abheta, Bharuch. The Assessing Officer arbitrarily computed the agricultural income without considering area of land. The bank statement clearly shows the credit of Rs.52,67,378/- in the account of assessee, being agricultural income, which is duly disclosed in the return of income. The agricultural activities are not disputed by lower authorities. The lower authorities only disputed the income from agricultural activities. The assessee furnished complete details. The lower authorities failed to appreciate the fact that assessee was carrying out agricultural activities on “ganot” basis on a land of 11.87 hectare and consent of letters of different persons were filed before Ld.CIT(A). In furnishing the relevant evidence, no prejudice resulted 4 Munir A.Shaikh to the Revenue by considering the material produced by assessee. The assesee’s case is squarely falls within four exceptions as mentioned in Rule- 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. So far as admission of additional evidence is concerned, Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon following case law:  Sri Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills vs. CIT (1982) 193 ITR 669 (Kar)  DCIT vs. New Manas Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. 73 ITD 157 (Gauhati-Trib.)  Smt. Prabhavati S Shah (1998) 231 ITER 1 (Bom)  ITO vs. Bajoria Foundatino (2001) 71 TTJ 343 (Kolkata Trib.) 3. The Ld. AR of the assessee also filed copy of certificate issued by Abheta, Gram Panchayat, Bharuch and one consent letter of Saiyad Mehboobali Gulamnabi.

4. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr.DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee right from the beginning frequently changing his stand and has not furnished details of ownership of land nor any agreement with the alleged landowners from whom the assessee has taken land on rent. The assessee is relying upon self-serving document to substantiate the claim of agricultural income. The Assessing Officer has fairly allowed the agricultural income on the basis of evidence furnished before Assessing Officer. Before Ld.CIT(A) assessee filed application for additional evidence and claimed that he is carrying agricultural activities by taking land on rent from other agriculturists and at the present was having holding 11.87 hectare of land though before Assessing Officer assessee claimed of land holding of 4.04 hectare. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the plea of assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule-46A, which was not found within 5 Munir A.Shaikh conditions prescribed under clause-(a) to (d) of sub-Rule 46A. The ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee is not eligible for further relief. In alternative and without prejudice submission, the Ld. Sr-DR submits that in case this Bench is of the view to allow additional evidence furnished by assessee required consideration, the same may be restored back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to obtain remand report call for from Assessing Officer and to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.