Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG
ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of CIT(A) Muzaffarnagar dated 31.12.2018 for AY 2013-14. 2. The ground of appeal
s raised by the assessee are as follows:-
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) of the Act and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in law and on the facts.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO of assessing the taxable income of the Appellant at INR 25,12,000/- as against the income of INR 1,12,000/-declared by the Appellant in its Return of Income (ROI).
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO of making an addition of INR 24,00,000/- to the income of the assessee treating the Agricultural Income of the Assessee as Income from other sources.
3. The learned counsel of assessee submitted that assessee is engaged in the agricultural activities on its own land and on the land taken on lease totaling to 32.4990 hectare and has cultivated crops of wheat and paddy on the said land and earned ITA No.1966/Del/2020 agricultural income from sale of said crop. The learned counsel further submitted that the Assessing Officer himself has proceeded to estimate the same price per hectare towards the said crop solely for the reason that the assessee has not been able to produce documentary evidence regarding the sale of crops; the receipts claimed by the assessee cannot be rejected. The assessee has not been able to produce sale bills and documents as the sales were not made in organized mandi markets but was done by way of unorganized petty sales through the village. The learned counsel finally submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer may kindly be deleted because the MSP of wheat as per Government of India orders was Rs. 1350 per quintal and great a paddy was Rs. 1200 per quintal therefore the average yield of assessee is to be estimated to be around Rs. 83.33 quintal per hectare for wheat and Rs. 117.9 quintal per hectare for paddy therefore the agricultural income shown by the assessee should be accepted. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the various orders of various co-ordinate benches of Tribunal and order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Jarnail Singh Karta, order dated 12.05.2008 in and submitted that the order of the authorities below may kindly be set aside.
The Senior DR strongly supported the order of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee could not substantiate its claim regarding agricultural income and therefore the Assessing Officer was right in allowing Rs. 20 lakh and denying remaining claim of Rs. 24 lakhs of assessee.
On careful consideration of above, first of all, I note that the learned CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee upholding the findings of the Assessing Officer with following observations and findings:- 5.2 Ground nos. 2 and 3: The appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 24,00,000/- made by the A treating the agricultural income of the appellant as income from other sources. During the course of appellate proceedings appellant reiterated the submissions made before A contending that the appellant could not produced bills etc. in support of claim of sale of agricultural produce due to irregular payments by Mandi Samities and appellant placed reliance on the Hon ble High Court in the case of CIT vs Jarnail Singh 2009 contending that AO should have estimated the agricultural income @Rs. 90,000/- per hectare indexed to FY 2012-13. 5.2.1 Examination of facts reveals that appellant declared agricultural income of Rs. 44,00,000/- as against income from other sources of Rs.. 1,12,000/-. During the course of appellate proceedings A required him to give the evidence in support of appellant's agricultural income. The AO required appellant to produce the evidence in support of cultivation processes carried out by him, which appellant failed to do. The A required appellant to substantiate agricultural income by producing bills, keeping in view the directions of CBDT dt. 10.03.2016. When appellant failed to produce documentary evidence to prove genuineness of agricultural income of such large extent before AO, the AO estimated the maximum income derivable from the land taken on lease as well as owned by him at the market rate i.e. of Rs. 60,000/- per hectare. During the course of appellate proceedings appellant challenged the market rate adopted by AO for computation of agricultural income and placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Jarnail Singh 2009. However, the appellant failed to substantiate the applicability of the said decision, in case of appellant as in that case there was a certificate from patwari supported by Form J, evidencing the sale of agricultural produce. 5.2.2 Keeping in view above facts appellant failed to contradict the finding of the AO during appellate proceedings. Hence, these grounds of appeal
are found to be non maintainable and accordingly dismissed.
6. In view of above, I find that when the appellant failed to produced the documentary evidence to prove genuineness of entire claim of agricultural income and the Assessing Officer has already estimated the maximum income derivable from the agricultural land owned as well as taken on lease by the assessee @ rate of 60,000 per hectare then the order of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Jarnail Singh Karta (supra) has not application to the present case having distinct and dissimilar fact as in the said case the assessee filed a certificate from the patwari supported by Form J, evidencing the sale of agricultural produce and this compliance is missing in the present case. Therefore, appeal of assessee being devoid on merits is dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.