What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had produced various evidences, including certificates and past assessment orders. However, to ensure proper verification, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh reconsideration.

The assessee claimed agricultural income, which was confirmed as income from other sources by the First Appellate Authority. The assessee presented evidence of land ownership, agricultural activity, and past acceptance of similar income by the department.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the genuineness and substantiation of the claimed agricultural income, particularly whether agricultural operations were actually carried out and the produce was genuinely sold.

Subodh Gajanand Sharma vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh,

For Appellant: Ms. N. Hemalatha-DR

Hearing: 03/01/2018

आदेश / O R D E R

The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11/08/2017 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, confirming the agriculture income of Rs.4,52,300/- as income from other sources.

During hearing, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Hari Das Bhatt, contended that the assessee was having ample proof of realization of agriculture income as the assessee owns 10 acres of agriculture land located at village Murbad (Dist. Thane), having tree plantation on the land and is also carrying out agricultural activity. The assessee have also obtained certificate from Talati evidencing the details of agriculture land and plantation grown there upon. The assessee has also filed various documents in the form of some certificates by contending that for Assessment Year 2009-10 agricultural income of Rs.3,16,225/- was accepted by the Department. Likewise, the assessee has annexed the copy of assessment order for Assessment Year 2011-12, wherein, the income of Rs.3,06,700/- was accepted and for Assessment Year 2012-13, the income of Rs.3,90,500/- and for Assessment Year 2014-15, agricultural income of Rs.4,72,800/- was accepted. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, contended that the assessee may be put to strict proof of agricultural income on the land as the assessee has not done any agricultural operation and merely made a claim.

2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Assessee has produced various evidences, sample bill towards sale of agricultural produce, certificate from the village Talati and various orders of different Assessment Years accepting the agricultural income. Thus, considering the totality of facts, I am of the view that this appeal requires fresh reconsideration at the level of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to produce the proof of (i) ownership and extent of land owned by the assessee (ii) whether any agricultural operation was in fact carried out by the assessee on the impugned land (iii) Genuineness of sale of agricultural produce (assessee has to produce the evidence).

(iv) genuineness of the report of the Talati and also whether the agricultural income was accepted in various years in routine or by considering the factual matrix.

Thus, the assessee is directed to furnish the necessary evidence to substantiate his claim before the Ld. Assessing Officer. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard, consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 03/01/2018.

Sd/- (Joginder Singh) �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 03/01/2018 f{x~{tÜ? P.S /�नजी स�चव आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त/ The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT- , Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

SUBODH GAJANAND SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments