SHRI DUSHYANT SATISH CHATURVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

1 457/NAG/2014 SATISH CHATURVEDI 76 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PK. BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 457/NAG/2014 (Assessment year 2009-10) SHRI SATISH JHAULAL CHATURVED] Vs ASSTT, COMMISSIONER OF 274, KOTWAL NAGAR, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CIVIL PAN: AASPCQ1834 LINES, NAGPUR 440 001 39rrajf (Appcllant) 9ryrf (Respondent) ITA No. 458/NAG/2014 (Assessment Year 2010-11) ABHA SATISH CHATURVEDI Vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF 274, KOTWAL NAGAR, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CIVHL PAN: ADAPC96730 LINES, NAGPUR 440 001 3dlarf (Appellant) ff (Respondent) ITA No: 459 & 460/NAC/2014 (Assessment Year 2010-11& 2011-12 DUSHYANT SATISH CHATURVEDI Vs ASSTT, COMMISSIONER OF 274, KOTWAL NAGAR, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, CIVIL PAN: ADAPC9620P LINES, NAGPUR 440 001 3daei (Appellant) sraff {Respondent) Appellant by Shri K.P. Dewani (AR) Respondent by ShriAR Niwawe {DR} Date of Hearing_ Date of Pronouncement 20.06.2017 21.06.2017 H2R0 ORDER PERPK BANSAL YE: ALI these appeals have been filed against the order of the CIT (A) respective order of the CIT(A) dated 27,08,2034, 15,07.2014, 15,07.2014 & Zn Fz 2 457/NAG;414 SATISH CHATUR VEDI 27.08,2014, All these appeals since involving the common issue therefore, all these are decided by this common order as agreed by both the parties: [n all these appeals the assessee had taken the following effective grounds of appeal: "1 On the facts and circumstances @f the case the Hon ble Commissioner of [ncome Tax (Appeals)-II summarily restricted the exemption of agricultural income to Rs 25,000/- per acre 2 The Assessee craves Ieave to, add to alter; amend, modify, substitute; delete and / or rescind any of the ground/ grounds of the appeal on or before the final hearing of the appeal 2 Both the parties agreed that all these appeals be decided on the basis of the Facts involved in the case of Shri Satish Chaturvedi and whatever view this Tribunal may take in that case same view may be taken in all other cases, The facts relating to this case are that the assessee filed the original return cn 30/05/2009 which was revised Qn 29/10/2010 showing income of Rs; 19,39,850/- besides this, the assessee had shown the agricultural income 0f Rs 17,02,150/- The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 30/12/2011 at Rs. 39,73,390/- as against the return income of Rs 19,39,850/- as the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs 17,02,150/- shown as a agricule ltural income a5 income from other sources: The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A} The CIT(A} even though agreed that the assessee owns 17.68 acres of agricultural land therefore he directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the agricultural income at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre by observing as under: "6,3 1 have carefully gone through the assessment order; submissions of the appellant and the records From the facts and circumstances it i5 seen that the appellant has conclusively agreed that the income and expenditure statement of agricultural activities and the corresponding bills and vouchers are not maintained As it is essential to have such record to accept the claim of income from the agricultural activities by the appellant, the Assessing Officer has rightly resorted to the estimation of income The Assessing Officer has no alternative but to estimate However; the appellant contended that the Assessing Officer has not disputed the earning of income from the agricultural operations and also the same Assessing Officer has accepted the similar incomes from 3 457/NAG/2O14 SATISH CHATURVEDI F2 agricultural operations and hcnce the Assessing Officer ought tq have accepted the income returned The Counsel for the appcllant has accepted in his submissions that in thc absence of complete evidences of bills and vouchcrs; thc Assessing Officer can estimiate the income from the agricultural operations. However, he argued that the estimation of the Assessing Officer is arbitrary as the conclusion of the Assessing Officer is based On presumption and pure guess-work without reference tq any material or evidence: Considering the arguments and information submitted, ] agree with the cuunsel for the appellant'$ argument that the estimation ought to have been based on sume material facts. 6.4 The appellant has submitted detailed submissions incorporating the crops grown in different seasons in lhe lands of appellant; their average yield, realization of sale of crop as per the whole sale rates and expenses incurred. The appellant relied on the test book Krushisanvadini' 2008 editian issued by Dr: Punjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth, Akola (Agricultural University) the average yield per acre of the various crops grown in the Vidarbha Region during the relevant period. Based on the above the appellant worked out the average income from agricultural operations from the lands owned to be not less than Rs. 48,000/ per acre: In view of the scientific nature of argument, it can be agreed that the yield of the crops may be in the range mentioned in the material relied on by the appellant However, duc to vagaries af nature the yield levels will vary from farn) to farm and also the wholcsale rates as adopted by the appellant may not be available to the farmer in the field due to the fact that the agricultural commodities market is infested with the middlemen. Further there is no proper substantiation for the expenses incurred for the agricultural activity. Thcreforc; Iam of the considered opinion that the working of income submitted by the appellant is on higher side and the estimation made by the AO). can be termed as arbitrary. P 6.5 [t is always better proposition to rely on the market to arrive at the fair prices for any of the income earning activity. I have gone through the lease agreement in respect of one farmland submitted by the appellant who is for Rs. 18,000/- per acre per year; The appellant contended that the annual Jease rental is Rs. 40,00/- orange orchard ad around Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per acre for plain agricultural land in areas near to the agricultural land owned by the appellant [n view of the overall facts and circumstances, the farmer who is doing agriculture by himself may derive more income compared to giving on lease to someone else. The lessee has to 'earn minimum amount of lease rent and some income for himself for his living: Hence, [ conclude that the farmer if he does intensive 457/NAG/Z_*4 SATISH CHATURVEDI cultivation by himself; normally he may get morc incone than the prevalent value of lease rentals, 6.6 In view of the above, in my considered opinion the estimation of ncome from lhe agricultural activities by the appellant at Rs, 25,000/-per acre meets justice; Accordingly these grounds are partly allowed 3_ We heard the rival submission carefully considered the same alongwith the order of the tax authorities The undisputed facts is that the reveue has not come in appeal against the order ofthe CIT(A) estimating the agricultural income at Rs 25,000/- per acre. [It is not disputed that the assessee had the agricultura} land 17.68 acres: The assessee has furnished before the Assessing Officer 7/12 extract The Assessing Officer was not satisfied about the quantum of the agricultural income he also noted that the assessee has not maintained any regular books for the agricultural receipt and expenditure: It is also not disputed that 7/12 cxtract categurically mentioncd that land is cultivated For the agricultural activities and the various crops such a5 Soyabean; Dhaan, Mangu, Chillies, Wheat; Chana Mosambi were cultivated on the said agricultural land thus it is not the case that the agricultural activities was not carried out On the said agricultural land The assessee has returned the agricultural income in the carlier Asscssment Year 2006-07, 2008-09. The revenue has also accepted the agricultural income in the order passed u/s. 143(3)as detailed below: Assessment Year_ Income Shown Income Accepted_ 2006-07 16,48,000/ 12,40,00 orderU 5 143{3) 2007-08 29,34,170/ 29,34,17/-orderus 14303) 2008-09 1443,1364 25,000L~per_acre by CITLALI_ 4 We noted that this issue is duly covered by the decision f this Tribunal in ITA No, 201 & 202/Nag/2013 for AY, 2008-09 & 2009-10 in the case of Shri Dushyant Satish Chaturvedi; ITA No 203/Nag/2013 for AY. 2008-09 in the case of Smt Sheetal Dushyant Chaturvedi; ITA No 20S/Nag/2013 for AY, 2008-09 in the case of Shri Satish Jhaulal Chaturvedi; ITA No. 207 & 208/Nag/2013 for AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 in the case of Smt Abha Satish Chaturvedi; ITA No 236 & 8c 5 457/NAG/2014 SATISH CHATURVEDI 237/Nag/2013 for AY. 2007-08 & 2009-10 in the case of Shri Dushyant Satish Chaturvedi In which this Tribunal vide order dated 2(th May, 2015 held as under: T5. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records, Learned Counse} of thc assessee submitted thal in the case of the assessee Shri Dushyant Chaturvedi, Revenue had accepted the agricultural income at Rs 15,40,000/- for assessment ycar 2006-07 under section 143(3). He submitted that extract in form no. 7/12 indicated that as5essee was holding substantial agricultural land and therc was agricultural activity upon it: Learned Counsel further submitted that ITAT, Bengalore in ITA no_ 946 and 947/Bang/2011 vide order dated 26/07/2013 had made an estimate of agricultural income of Rs. 75,000/- per acre in assessment year 2004-05, Hence learned counsel submitted that the entire agricultural income claimed by the assessce deserves to be accepted: 6 Per contra; Learncd D.R submitted that learned CIT (Appeals) has passed a fair and reasonable order: In abscnce of any details provided by the assessee, learned CIT(Appeals) has passed a reasonable order: Hence he contended that the learned CIT(Appeals) order should be affirmed. 7 Upon careful consideration we note that asscssee had made a claim of estimated amount 0f agricultural income: No 'details regarding the sale or the expenditure incurred were maintained and provided to the Assessing Officcr: Assessee'$ counsel claimed that since in assessmcnt year 2006-07 a larger amount was accepted as agricultural income; this year also agricultural income as claimed by the assessee should be accepted We find that this proposition ha5 nQ cogcncy The said assessment order does not show that the issue of agricultural income was examined by the Assessing Officer; No details as to the query posed, if any, by the Assessing Officer in this regard was submitted: Hencc just because in earlier year an estimated incomc was accepted without any enquiry, same cannot become a yardstick As regards the claim of estimate of Rs; 75,000/- per acre by the ITAT, Bengalorc; Wc find that the same pertains to a different region and 0n the different facts of case; The same cannot become a universal guiding factor for estimation 0f agricultural income We find that Assessing Officer has not denied that the assessee was not engaged into agricultural activity. There is no enquiry by the Assessing Officer which suggest that assessee was not carrying 0n any agricultural activity: Assessing Officer has only made an estimate of agricultural income without assigning cogent basis &, On the contrary; upon going through the order of learned CIT(Appeals); we are of the opinion that learned CIT(Appeals) has made a fair estimate of income based upon various factors for estimation taken 81 6 457/NAG/Z '4 SATISH CHATURYEOI into account by him In these circumstances; in Qur considered opinion, learned CIT(Appeals) order is fair and reasonable and the same does not need any interfcrence on Our part' 5 Respectfully following the said order of the Tribunal, we confirm order of the CIT(A) in all these appeals In the result all the appcals stand dismissed, Order pronounced in the open court on 21.06.2017 St/- Sd}- (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER (PKBANSAL) VICE PRESIDENT Nagpur Date; 21st June; 2017 RDhoke/PS Copy to; 1) The Appellant; 2) The Respondent; 3) The CIT(A): 4} The CIT; Nagpur City Concerned; 5) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; 6) Guard File By Order zx #t7 #3A4s 1` #nlg 177275 #trr 8g_ Incometax ApPellate Tribural NAGPUR; m ~0'