ARYA AGRI & AQUA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), BHUBANESWAR
Facts
Arya Agri & Aqua Private Limited, engaged in agriculture and fishery, claimed agricultural income as exempt for AY 2016-17 and 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, treating the agricultural income as unexplained cash credit, which was subsequently confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee filed appeals contesting these additions.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee was genuinely engaged in agricultural activities, supported by evidence such as photographs, video clips of the land, bank loan documents for agricultural purposes, and bills for fertilizer purchases. It noted the Ward Inspector's report, which partially confirmed the presence of standing paddy crops. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the agricultural income was genuine and deleted the addition made under section 68 for both assessment years.
Key Issues
Whether the agricultural income declared by the assessee could be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee provided substantial evidence of engaging in agricultural activities.
Sections Cited
Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक कटक �यायपीठ �यायपीठ,कटक आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण कटक कटक �यायपीठ �यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.460 & 461/CTK/2024 (िनधा�रण िनधा�रण िनधा�रण वष� िनधा�रण वष� वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) वष� Arya Agri & Aqua Private Limited Vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.A/10, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar PAN No. : AAJCA 5847 R (अपीलाथ� अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��यथ� ��यथ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� अपीलाथ� ��यथ� ��यथ� .. िनधा�रती िनधा�रती क� िनधा�रती िनधा�रती क� क� ओर क� ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee by ओर : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राज�व राज�व क� राज�व राज�व क� क� ओर क� ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue by ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तारीख / Date of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 23/01/2025 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Bench : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed in IT Appeal No.CIT(A), NFAC/2017-18/10048149 & CIT(A), Bhubaneswar- 1/10537/2018-19, vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068127205(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065677607(1), both dated 29.08.2024 & 14.06.2024 for the assessment year 2016-2017 & 2018-2019. 2. At the outset, on perusal of the appeal record, it is found that appeal of the assesee for A.Y.2018-2019 is filed belatedly by 12 days and appeal of the assesee for A.Y.2016-2017 is filed belatedly by 73 days. In both the appeals, the assesee has filed condonation applications along with affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay in filing both the appeals. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the respective delay in filing both the appeals and appeals are heard finally.
2 ITA No.460&461/CTK/2024 3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assesee in ITA
No.461/CTK/2024 for A.Y.2016-2017, wherein the assesee has raised the
following grounds :-
That the impugned Appellate Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Income Tax Department, Govt. of India is bad in law and without application of mind. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer assessing the taxable income of the assessee based on erroneous facts and without applying his mind while considering the agricultural income as unexplained credit u/s 68 and accordingly made the addition of Rs.1,88,34,720 and raised the demand against the assessee. The assessee vehemently opposes such action of the Assessing Officer and also aggrieved by the CIT(A) for not allowing the appeal adjudicated in favour of the assessee based on the facts of the case and consistent in recognizing the income by the assessee for last several years. The assessee prays before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to reject the addition made by the AO and allow the income as agricultural income and accordingly adjudicate the matter in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the addition of Rs.1,88,34,720 be deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That the Appellant craves the leave of the Hon'ble Bench to add, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal, submit written submissions, paper book and such other facts and figures before or at the time of hearing of the case, if necessity so arises.
Brief facts of the case are that the assesee is a private limited
company, engaged in the business of cultivation of agriculture produce
and fishery products. The case of the assesee was selected for limited
scrutiny to verify the agriculture income claimed as exempt and the
assessment was completed vide order dated 29.12.2018, wherein the
addition of Rs.1,45,00,000/- was made u/s.68 of the Act by holding that
the agricultural income declared by the assesee is unexplained cash
credit. The assesee has claimed net agriculture income of Rs.96,28,307/-
3 ITA No.460&461/CTK/2024 out of gross receipt of Rs.1,45,40,415/- as exempt, however, since the
AO was of the opinion that no agriculture activity was carried out, he held
the agriculture income as unexplained and made the addition on the gross
agriculture income of Rs.1,45,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68
of the Act. In first appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Thus, the
assesee is in appeal before us.
During the course of hearing, ld. AR of the assesee submitted that
the assesee is having total approx 200 bighas of land situated in two
different areas and undisputedly the land in question is agricultural in
nature. On both the pieces of land, the assesee is having many ponds
where fishery products are produced and besides this agricultural produce
are also cultivated on the remaining part of the land. During the year out
of the total receipts of Rs.6,78,95,547/-, the sale of fishery products was
of Rs.5,33,55,132/- and sale of agricultural produce was of
Rs.1,45,40,415/-. The ld. AR submitted that the AO has not doubted the
income from fishery products, however, has doubted the agricultural
activity and made the addition on Rs.1.45 crores out of total agriculture
receipts holding the same as unexplained cash credit. The ld. AR
submitted that the assesee has claimed expenses which includes the
expenses on purchase of seeds for both the activities and while alleging
the agricultural income as unexplained, the AO observed that the assesee
has failed to produce the bills of seeds purchased. However, while
alleging so, the AO has adopted double standards where on one hand he
allowed the deduction towards purchase of seeds for fishery products and
4 ITA No.460&461/CTK/2024 on other hand has doubted the purchase of seeds for agricultural
products. He further submitted that during the course of assessment
proceedings the Ward Inspector visited the land of the assesee to verify
as to whether the agricultural activities were actually carried out or not. He
further submitted that no order authorizing the inspector to make such
verification is made as is evident from the perusal of order sheet which is
placed in paper book. Ld. AR stated that as per the Inspector’s report, he
observed that there were no trees etc. were available as claimed by the
assesee for having agricultural income at the time of his visit which was
carried out in October, 2018. As per the ld. AR the Inspector visited the
land in October, 2018 when the assesee has almost shut down the
agricultural activity, therefore, when the Inspector visited lands of the
assesee, he could not find the trees from which the assesee has claimed
the agricultural income. Ld. AR stated that the visit of Inspector was after
more than 2 years from the end of previous year relevant to assessment
year under appeal. He further submitted that the inspector has made
verification from the local villagers, however, no enquiry whatsoever was
made from the employees of the assesee, who were available at the
premises and were involved in agricultural activity. Since the local
villagers are totally unrelated and outsiders, were not aware of activity that
was carried out by the assesee, thus, their version could not be relied
upon. Had the Inspector made the enquiry from the correct persons, the
true picture of the real nature of the activity carried out by the assesee
would come to surface. Ld. AR also filed certain photographs in the paper
5 ITA No.460&461/CTK/2024 book which are placed at pages 103 to 108 containing the photos of
ponds as well as agricultural produces are clearly visible. Moreover,
during the course of hearing, a pen drive containing the video of total land
owned by the assesee was also submitted, which were played during the
course of hearing through computer and both the parties i.e. the ld. AR of
the assesee and the ld. Sr. DR had a look on the video. As per the said
video it is clearly visible that both agricultural as well as fishery production
activities were carried out by the assesee. These pen drives are placed
on record. The ld. AR also drew our attention to the report of Inspector
where he observed that some standing crop of paddy is there at the land
of the assesee in isolation patches which further established that
agricultural activities were carried out on the said laid while the Inspector
has visited. Ld. AR further drew our attention to the sanctioned letter
issued by the Bank of India, Jaydev Vihar Branch, Bhubaneswar where
the bank has allowed the credit facility to the assesee on the said land
and the funds were allowed to the production used for fisheries,
agricultural etc. From the perusal of the balance sheet also it appears that
during the year under appeal, there were outstanding balance of the bank
loan and it is an admitted fact that when a nationalized bank had made
the advances it had carried out the periodical visits to the borrowers
premises to confirm that the funds were utilized for which they were
granted and further periodic stock statements were also obtained by the
bankers to ensure that the credits facility was properly utilized and duly
supported by the securities. In view of these facts, the ld. AR prayed that
6 ITA No.460&461/CTK/2024 assesee was actually carried out agriculture activity on the land besides
having fishery production, thus, the addition made by the AO holding
agricultural income as unexplained cash credit deserves to be deleted.
On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of
the lower authorities and submitted that the assesee has failed to
controvert the finding of the AO with regard to the agricultural activity
carried out at the land which are based on spot enquiry by Inspector.
Further the assesee has not produced entire bills & vouchers of expenses
claimed against agriculture income. Therefore, he requested for the
confirmation of the addition so made and confirmed by the lower
authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material
available on record. In the instant case, one thing is not disputed by either
of the party that the land in question was agricultural land and is used for
agricultural purpose only. This fact is further confirmed by the Ward
Inspector, who visited the land for verification of the agricultural activities.
The report so submitted by the Inspector is reproduced as under :-
7 ITA No.460&461/CTK/2024 8. From the perusal of the report of the Inspector, it is seen that he
admitted that in isolated patches standing crop of paddy is available.
Moreover, from the perusal of the report, we find that the Inspector has
failed to make proper and adequate enquiry nor had recorded statements
of any person. Further the Inspector had made enquiries from the local
villagers and had not confronted the employees of the assesee who were
not only taken care of the land but also actively engaged in the
agricultural activities and were available when he visited the land. It
appears that the Inspector chose not to make any enquiry from them to
ascertain true nature of the activity carried out. It is further seen from the
copy of the order sheet placed in the paper book pages 73 to 74 where
there is no entry of the AO deputing the Inspector for making spot
verification nor any entries made for submission of the report to the AO or
its further examination. The said order sheet is reproduced as below :-
8 ITA No.460&461/CTK/2024
The assesee has claimed expenses towards purchases of seeds.
The expenses pertaining to fishery business were allowed as claimed,
however, the AO has doubted the expenses claimed against agricultural
income by alleging that the same were without any supporting. Further
from the perusal of the video clip submitted by the assesee, the ld. Sr. DR
9 ITA No.460&461/CTK/2024 has not doubted the agricultural activities carried out at the land. From the
perusal of the photographs also we found that the agricultural activities
were carried out on the said land. The ld AR also drew our attention to
few copies of the bills for purchase of fertilizers which are in paper book
placed before us. As perusal of the bills, it is seen that the bills are
relating to DAP, UREA, pesticides etc. which could only be used for
agricultural production and not for fishery production. All these facts lead
to believe that assesee was actively engaged in the agricultural activity
and, therefore, the receipts from the agricultural produce cannot be
doubted. This view is also supported by field enquiry report of the
Inspector where he very categorically observed that paddy was available
in patches at the land of assesee. Under these circumstances, we are of
the view that the assesee has been able to establish that agricultural
activity was carried out by it and further able to substantiate the
agricultural income earned from the sale of agricultural produce which
were cultivated on the land owned by it with all plausible evidences and,
therefore, the addition made on this account is hereby deleted and the
grounds of appeal of the assesee are allowed.
Now, we shall take up the appeal of the assesee for A.Y.2018-2019
filed in ITA No.460/CTK/2024, wherein the facts are pari materia to the
facts discussed in the appeal for A.Y.2016-2017. As the arguments put
forth by both the parties are identical to the grounds raised for both the
years under consideration, except different in figures, therefore, the
reasoning given by us in the appeal i.e. ITA No.461/CTK/2024 shall apply
10 ITA No.460&461/CTK/2024 mutatis mutandis to the appeal of the assesee for A.Y.2016-2017 also.
Accordingly, we hold that the agricultural income declared by the assesee
is genuine and addition made in this regard is hereby deleted. Thus,
grounds of appeal of the assesee for this year also are allowed.
In the result, both appeals of the assesee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23/01/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (MANISH AGARWAL) लेखा सद�य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER सद�य कटक कटक Cuttack; �दनांक Dated 23/01/2025 कटक कटक Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant- Arya Agri & Aqua Private Limited Plot No.A/10, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar ��यथ� / The Respondent- 2. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A), 3. आयकर आयु� / CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कटक 5. कटक कटक / DR, ITAT, कटक Cuttack गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार
(Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack
