TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 46A especially when the assessee furnished different and holding at different points of time. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have considered the new evidence field by the assessee in the form of the statistic published by the Department of Agricultural Economics. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapith. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the statistic published by the Vidyapith provides only the range of yield of agriculture produce and not the actual average yield statistic in the district. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee never produced his copy of receipts of Dhule Krishi Utpan Bajar Samiti either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, it cannot be said that the over writing and corrections in the receipts are not attributed to the assessee. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have considered the extraneous issues such as non-investments during the year, which have no relevance to the issue on hand i.e., source of deposits in the bank account. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have held that the assessee has no other source of income when the assessee is getting all the benefits available to a sitting MLA by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The acceptable production of cotton as per A.O is 20.09% against production claimed. The sale proceeds of the cotton at 20.09% Rs. 1,31,150 is acceptable as against claim of the appellant at Rs. 6,52,850. ii. The gross sale proceeds of the other crops claimed by the appellant at Rs. 20,17,857 is treated as excessive to the extent of 79.81% Rs. 16,12,462 and accepted to the extent of 20.09% Rs. 4,05,395 following the contention of excessive claim in respect of cotton production. iii. There is overwriting on 7/12 extract in respect of area under cultivation of cotton. iv. There is overwriting on some receipts of Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samittee, Dhule. 3. During the first appellate proceedings, assessee submitted that A.O failed to understand the fact that 21500 kgs of cotton out of total sales of 30365 kgs of cotton was sold on 02-04-2004 to three parties and said cotton was not grown in the year under consideration and it belongs to the production of earlier years. Balance of 10000 kgs (appox) of cotton is quantitatively producible in this year in the land held by the assessee. The average yield of 1600 kgs to 3000 kgs per hector as per the MPKV statistics will protect th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee argued stating that while the land holding is undisputed and also when the genuineness of agriculture of cotton and other crops is undisputed and when the sale of the agricultural produce to the genuine parties, which is supported by the sale bills, is undisputed, the A.O cannot reject the claim of the assessee. In this regard the Ld Counsel relied on the evidences furnished before the revenue authorities. Referring to the ground 9 of the appeal ie the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have held that the assessee has no other source of income when the assessee is getting all the benefits available to a sitting MLA by way of honorarium etc, Ld Counsel mentioned that the he has objection to the said ground raised by the revenue as the same is raised for the first time before the Tribunal and it was not raised or attended by the revenue either during the assessment or first appellate proceedings. In this regard, without conceding, the Counsel argued stating that the AO cannot made addition of Rs. 21,34,162/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank account, when the assessee no other source of income and he took support some decisions in this regard. In the alternative, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier year with out going into the basics of such claim and (ii) the agricultural produce of the other crops without going into the issues. As per the DR, mere possessing the land holding is not enough to uphold the claim of agricultural income which is entitled for the exemption u/s 10(1) of the Act and further merely the existence of statistics published by Department of Agrl. Economics, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, which bats for average cotton production in irrigated land @ 1600 to 3000 kgs per hector, is not adequate for allowing the claim of the assessee. In nutshell, Ld DR relied heavily on the order of the AO and he is critical of the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have heard the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue. The undisputed facts are that the assessee has agricultural holdings of 36 acres as evident from the extracts from the records of the Revenue Department of the State Government. He is also a politician and a sitting MLA. He never filed the return of income in the past and therefore, there is no official claim of an agricultural income in the past. The credits and the debits, which appeared in the impugned bank account of the assessee for the rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the first time before the CIT(A), the First appellate authority. It is surprising to note that there is no whisper about the filing of the impugned additional evidences for the first time before him and under what circumstances, the assessee could not produce the same during the assessment proceedings, which was in fact completed u/s 144 of the Act. In our opinion, the CIT(A), who should have completed the appellate proceedings after remand report from the AO, is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and to that extent, the grievance of the revenue is justified in its entirety. Relevant grounds of the revenue are allowed. 9. Onus: Regarding the issues relating to the discharging of the onus by the assessee, in our opinion, in addition to the 7/12 8A extracts showing the land holding of 36 acres and showing crops grown on the said land and 20 receipts for sale of agricultural produce, assessee should have filed evidences in support of the actual agricultural practices undertaken by the assessee during the current year and also the earlier years in support of the stored cotton of 21500 kgs sold on 2nd April. It is also appropriate to mention that the AO s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her crops Estimation of produce cotton yielding as basis: Regarding other crops we are of the opinion that CIT(A) has not merely followed the findings if held in connection with the cotton, no independent finding was given by the CIT(A) in his order on the point. From the orders of the revenue, it is evident that for estimation of the produce of other crops was done based on the criteria of cotton. In our opinion, such estimation is erroneous. More so, when the AO s estimation is evidently erroneous as pointed out by the CIT(A). We have also mentioned earlier that the AO considered earlier years produce of cotton as the produce of the year under consideration. Therefore, assessee has not produced requisite evidences to support the claims relating to quantities of other crops and claim of deduction u/s 10(1) of the Act. Revenue has not done its job in garnering requisite basic facts relating to the proper criteria for estimating the reasonable crop produce in respect of these crops such comparable cases, crop yields from the land holding of the neighboring agriculturists of the same locality etc. 13. Not A Speaking Order on various Aspects: order of the CIT(A) is not a speaki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
