TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne Complex Ltd. in her planting village Panipoila on 06.12.2012 and supplied it to the farmer who planted it on 18.12.2012 in his planting village at Gunthuni. According to the appellant's own written submission-dated 18th November 2016, in which the appellant has explained the agricultural process, it takes 1 to 2 months time for buds and 6 to 12 months time for small plants to develop from the seeds. If this is so, then how could the appellant take supply of the seeds on 06.12.2012 and supply the sugarcane plants on 18.12.2012. - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 78/CTK/2018 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2018 - Shri N. S. Saini, AM And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM Assessee by : Shri G. Nayak, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following documents (i) Evidence in support of land holding, i.e., Lease Deed (ii) Evidence in support of basic agricultural operations such as expenditures for labour incurred for tilling of land, sowing/disseminating of seeds and planting, digging of soil, etc. (iii) Evidence in support of expenditure such as fertilizers chemicals (iv) Evidence in support of sale of agricultural produces (v) Evidence in support of payment received against such sales through bank. 5. Agriculture income is exempt under Section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961-This means that income earned from agricultural operations is not taxed. As per Income Tax Act agricultural income means any income derived from land by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT vs. Pravat Agri Biotech Ltd., 2016 ITL 3799 (AP-HC) CIT vs. K.N.Pannirselvam, 217 ITL 40 (MADRAS-HC) The order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of DCIT, Hyderabad Vs. M/s Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, ITA No. 1594/Hyd/14 may also be considered 1. The CIT(A) without thorough examination of the facts of the case, without careful and judicious perusal of the documentary evidences produced before him and without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee, accepted and upheld the view of the assessing officer and passed the order. The CIT(Appeal) has referred the case of Hon'ble ITAT, Cuttack Bench in ITA No.363 364/CTK/2015 for A.Y. 2010- 11 in case of Asha Manjari Mishra. But in this case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of the Act were issued. In compliance of the same, ld. AR appeared before the AO and case was discussed. Thereafter the AO completed the reassessment assessing total income at ₹ 47,87,310/- and passed order u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 08.12.2016 and made disallowance of ₹ 38,31,518/- treating the agricultural income as Non-agricultural income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings the CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee and findings of the AO, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR before us submitted that the assessee d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the record of the Tribunal.] Since the ld A.R. of the assessee has not referred to any of the documents filed in the paper book, the paper book filed are not treated as part of record as per the above quoted ITAT Rules. 10. Ld A.R. could not bring any relevant and cogent material on record to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) that the appellant received the sugarcane seeds from Nayagarh Sugarcane Complex Ltd. in her planting village Panipoila on 06.12.2012 and supplied it to the farmer who planted it on 18.12.2012 in his planting village at Gunthuni. According to the appellant's own written submission-dated 18th November 2016 (which was filed during appeal proceedings of A.Y 2012- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
