BHOOMICA AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Assessee by : Sh. J. B. Sharma, FCA Revenue by: Sh. Sunil Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing 12/05/2016 Date of pronouncement 08/07/2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-2, 1. New Delhi dated 24.07.2015 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1. The order of the Ld. A.O ward 2(4), New Delhi, in the Assessee's case, is bad in law as well as facts of the case, since Ld. A.O. has treated Rs. 6,45,168/- on account of Agriculture Income as undisclosed income of the assessee and raised demand of tax for a sum of Rs. 3,39,830/-despite that the assessee has provided" full proof of his substantial land holdings and income therefrom through various submissions made from time to time at the time of Assessment proceedings .

2. Keeping in view of justice assessee had filed an appeal before Hon'ble CIT (Appels-2) and instead of expectation, The order of the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals-2), Delhi is surprising and embarrassing for assessee , since instead of providing any relief, income had been further enhanced by Rs.22,16,012.00 which was allowed by Ld. A.O.

3. It appears that Hon'ble CIT (Appeals-2) has not considered the documents produced before Ld. A.O. as confirmed by Ld. A.O. in Assessment Order.

4. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals-2) has passed order simply stating that in page 12 that notice sent at the address mentioned in Form no.35 or at the address mentioned in the assessment order but it appears that assessee is not interested in^ prosecuting the appeals.

5. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals-2) has enhanced income merely pn the basis of non appearance and unserved notice which is highly unjustified , arbitrary and looks to be vindictive in approach which can't be expected from the appellate.

6. Hon'ble CIT (Appeals-2) and Ld. A.O. has not considered the facts that the company is continuously and regularly assessed as agricultural unit under Section 2 and Section 10 of the Income Tax Act,1961 and no tax had been Page 2 of 3 levied on the agricultural income during the previous year though assessee had faced assessment in Assessment Year 1995-96,1996-97 and 2001-02 .

7. It is highly surprising that Ld.A.O and Hon'ble CIT (Appeals-2) has not given any weightage to the assessee's filling , in which all income has been exempted u/s 10(1) of I.T.Act,1961.Since, Assessee has agriculture as only source of Income therefore Ld.A.O.'s demand and enhanced by Hon'ble CIT (Appeals-2)-is totally unjustified and arbitrary.

8. The ld AO has made addition of Rs. 50,000/- and Hon’ble CIT(appeals-2) had confirmed the same on account of share application money ignoring the various details produced for verification to them.” The brief facts are that assessee is a company engaged in agro activities. It 3. filed its return of income of Rs. 12468/- on 31.10.2005. The income was assessed u/s 143(3) wherein Rs. 645168/- is treated as unexplained of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act holding that 1 bigha of land can fetch only Rs. 10000/- annually and therefore the balance income was held to be income from non-agriculture. The assessee carried the matter before the ld CIT(A), who in turn enhance the addition to the income from Rs. 645168/- to Rs. 2861180/-. The ld CIT(A) enhanced this income as the assessee has not been able to furnish the evidence that the said income actually emanated from agricultural activities. The ld CIT(A) further held that in the similar circumstances in assessee’s own case the entire agricultural income of the appellant is treated as undisclosed income. Therefore the assessee is in appeal before us. Before us the ld AR furnished a written submission has submitted that despite 4. of details of ownership of the land as well as the lease deed along with the Khasra Nos produced before the ld CIT(A) it was held against the assessee. He further submitted that the entire addition was made wrongly and non appreciation of the facts.