9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2000-01 to 2006-07 have been disposed of by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide common order of even date. The appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10 have been decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 19-11-2012 common for the three assessment years. The Department has filed cross appeals against the aforesaid orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in ITA Nos. 500 to 510/PUN/2013. Since, the issues raised in these appeals and the cross appeals are identical, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are decided by this common order. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an application to bring on record the Legal Representative (LR) of Shoukat Allabksha Bagwan. The assessee Shoukat Allabksha Bagwan has died on 27-08-2014. A photocopy of his death certificate along with the affidavit of his LR Arish Shoukat Bagwan has been filed. The LR of Shoukat Allabksha Bagwan is taken on record and his name Arish Shoukat Bagwan is accordingly substituted in place of deceased Shoukat Allabaksha Bagwan. 3. The assessee has assailed the findings of Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... book results of the appellant may kindly be approved. 2. The appellant may be allowed to add / rectify the grounds of appeal." Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee assailing the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in other assessment years i.e. assessment years 2000-01 to 2009-10. 4. The Revenue in ITA No. 500/PUN/2013 for assessment year 1999- 2000 has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by raising following grounds of appeal : "1. CIT(A) erred in not confirming the additions made by the A.O. on the issue of agricultural income from sale of sugarcane, Vegetables & other agricultural income from flowers, fruits, coconuts etc. in toto disregarding the evidences brought out in the assessment order. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee sought to explain the source of the assets found during search through agricultural income and therefore addition on the issue of agricultural income is in essence addition of unexplained investment of the assessee in various assets. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that onus is on the assessee to explain the source of the assets and assessee failed to discharge the onus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 05 & 2005-06 Soniya Nagari Vinkar & Vinkar Vyavasaik Sah. Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. DCIT 445 & 446/PUN/2013 2004-05 & 2005-06 ITO Vs. Soniya Nagari Vinkar & Vinkar Vyavasaik Sah. Pat Sanstha Ltd. The facts in the present set of appeals are identical and thus, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the aforementioned appeals. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed on record a copy of the order of Tribunal in the aforementioned appeals decide on 15-02-2017. 6. Dr. Subhash Chandra representing the Department fairly admitted that the issues raised in the present set of appeals and the facts in the present case are similar to the bunch of appeals decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of other family members of Bagwan Group. 7. Both sides heard. Orders of authorities below perused. The dispute in present set of appeals relate to estimation of agricultural income. We find that the grounds raised by the assessee in the present set of appeal are identical to the one adjudicated by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 216/PUN/2013 for assessment year 2000-01 in the case of Anjum Shoukat Bag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer should not disturb the same and accept it. The relevant finding of the Tribunal at para 66 reads as under: "66. Considering the above submissions, there is no doubt on the contention of the Ld. A.R. that books of account maintained by the assessee in regular course of the business cannot be outrightly rejected without assigning proper reason for the same but in the present case before us, the availability of books of account regularly maintained remained doubtful as the same was not found during the course of search and seizure or survey operations. The A.O nowhere has accepted any specific wording that books of accounts were found during the course of search or survey operation , hence existence of the same always remained in doubt. Under these circumstances, the only option left with the authorities below was to examine the possibility of acceptance of the claimed agriculture income by the assessee on estimate basis keeping in mind the area of land held by the assessee and agricultural activities, shown by the assessee thereon supported with evidence. The A.O noted that there was substantial cash deposits in the account of the assessee which were stated to be ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has observed that finding of the A.O with regard to sale of fruits is not correct since the copies of 7/12 extracts furnished by the assessee contained details of fruits grown on the land. The fruits are described as mangoes, chikku, banana, coconut, papaya, lemon etc., Regarding vegetable, the ld CIT(A) has observed that compared to the land holding the sale of vegetables at Rs. 15 lakhs over the period of 7 years cannot be said to be an unlikely sum especially when the assessee is primarily an agricultural farm which has been set up for the agricultural activities. He has further noted that the A.O has added the entire amount shown as cash sales as income of the assessee from undisclosed income without appreciating that if this income is removed from the agricultural receipt, a peculiar situation emerges in which in almost all the years, the income is lower than the total expenditure debited to the books resulting in loss from agricultural activities, which is unusual to say. He has also noted that the production of fruits is within the standards published by Indian Government bodies. He has also noted that yield of fruits and vegetables per unit area was compared with the stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be totally denied. Since the books of account regarding the agricultural activity especially specific about fruits and vegetables, questioned before us have not been maintained in the regular course of the affairs, thus correct income cannot be deduced therefrom. We are therefore of the view, that it is a fit case to estimate the income from these activities of the assessees as holding of land of 74.32 acres by the assessee has not been denied nor this fact has been denied that the assessee is primarily an agriculture farm which has been set up for the business of agriculture. We are of the view that under the circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to estimate the claimed income from fruits and vegetables by accepting the claim of the assessee in this regard upto the 80 % of the standard yield reported by NHB in the case of fruits and of ICAR in case of vegetable yield. Where the assessee has already shown the yield below 80% of the standard yield reported by the above government bodies, A.O should not disturb the same and accept it. It is ordered accordingly. The ground is thus partly allowed. Dairy Income." The issue which is arising in the present case before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of Shri Badshah Bagwan and where the statement of the said person was never confronted to the assessee nor the information supplied to the assessee, the said information cannot be applied to decide the issue against the assessee. In any case, in the facts of the case, the assessee has claimed that it has grown vegetables on its agricultural land holding and he pleads that the said vegetables are not grown on sharing system basis. We find merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard and accordingly we hold so. 26. The second estimation of agricultural income in the hands of the assessee is on account of sugarcane wherein part of the land was under the crop of sugarcane from A.Y. 2001-02 onwards. The question arose of estimation of the said agricultural income from sugarcane produce relying on the facts of Shri Badshah Bagwan and 50% was deducted towards agricultural expenses and paid towards contractual farming. Since the facts of the present case are at variance to the facts in Shri Badshah Bagwan, we find no merit in deducting any amount towards batai expenses in respect of the estimation of income arising from sugarcane plantation. We direct the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee are partly allowed in same terms and the appeals of the Department are dismissed for similar reasons.
ITA Nos. 1624 & 1625/PUN/2016 - Shahnaj Shoukat Bagwan - A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 (Assessee's Appeal)
ITA No. 1626/PUN/2016 - Kaish Shoukat Bagwan - A.Y. 2013-14 (Assessee's Appeal)
ITA No. 1627/PUN/2016 - Shoukat Allabksha Bagwan - A.Y. 2013-14 (Assessee's Appeal)
ITA No. 1628/PUN/2016 - Arish Shoukat Bagwan - A.Y. 2013-14 (Assessee's Appeal)
8. Identical grounds have been raised by the assessees in their respective appeals against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur in their respective cases. Since, the issues raised in the appeals filed by the above mentioned assessees are identical to the grounds raised in the appeals by Shoukat Allabksha Bagwan, therefore, the findings given by us in ITA Nos. 193 to 203/PUN/2013 would mutatis mutandis apply in the present set of appeals, as well. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed in the same terms.
9. In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 17th day of May, 2017. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
