2015 (4) TMI 398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled on Income declared (Rs.) Agricultural income declared (Rs.) 2006-07 31.3.2007 4,19,766 30,59,146 2007-08 31.3.2008 18,83,213 40,55,100 2008-09 30.9.2008 13,90,415 52,86,547 2009-10 30.9.2009 21,39,000 45,74,039 2.2 The assessee's case for the above four assessment years were taken up for scrutiny and the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') wherein the Assessing Officer brought to tax a part of the agricultural income declared as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act in three years and as cash credit under Section 68 of the Act in the year 2007-08. The details are extracted hereunder :- 2.3 Aggrieved by the orders of assessment for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10, as per the dates mentioned in para 2.2 (supra), the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT (Appeals), Mysore. The learned CIT (Appeals) disposed off the assessee's four appeals, by way of a combined order dt.6.9.2013 allowing the assessee partial relief; the details of which are as under :- Assessment Year Agricultural income declared (Rs.) Additions made by the A.O. (Rs.) Additions confirmed in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, certificates issued by Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture, Zilla Panchayat, Puttur, D.K., valuation reports of Central Plantation Crops Research Institute and Rubber Board, in support of claim of Respondent's claim. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) has rightly restricted the additions made by the Assessing Officer and correctly adopted method for the same for different assessment years. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has ought to have followed instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, Instruction NO.5/2014 (F.No.279/MISC.142/2007-IT(Pt), dated 10th July, 2014, being revision for monetary limits for filing of appeals by the department before the ITAT. 5. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the cross-objections of the Respondent and the order of the CIT (Appeals) may be confirmed and that, appeal of the Assessing Officer be dismissed." Revenue's appeals for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10 in ITA Nos.75 to 78/Bang/2014. 5.0 The grounds raised at S.Nos.1, 6 & 7 being general in nature, no adjudication is called for thereon. 6.0 Ground Nos. 2 to 5 - Agricultural Income 6.1 In the grounds raised at S.Nos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o be incurred was on the lower side so that higher agricultural income could be claimed. It was vehemently argued that the Assessing Officer's basis for estimation of 50% increase in agricultural income over the previous year's agricultural income were arbitrary estimates, based on surmises, guess work and not supported by any material evidence or scientific basis. 6.2.2 The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee was holding 16.32 acres of agricultural land with about 1,200 rubber trees in 3 acres of land; and 6,000 arecanut trees in 13.5 acres, along with 2,000 coconut trees planted beside the arecanut trees. Apart from this, the assessee had inter crops like vanilla, pineapple, banana, vegetables, cashew and pepper creepers. It was further submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that the Assessing Officer in his remand report dt.20.8.2013 has clearly stated that in the concerned orders of assessment, the Assessing Officer has estimated the income only in respect of arecanut and coconut and that the income in respect of crops such as pepper, vanilla, cashew, banana and other products were not estimated, since the details regarding these crops did....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Assessing Officer in the remand report dt.20.8.2013. In coming to this view, the Assessing Officer has relied on the valuation reports of the CPCRI, Kerala dt.15.7.2010 and of Rubber Board, Kerala dt.14.7.2010 which are generalized reports pertaining to the estimated cost of cultivation of arecanut and cost of planting and maintenance of rubber and are not made after an inspection of the assessee's agricultural land. No mention is made therein in respect to the inter crops like vanilla, pepper, plantation, etc. the existence of which is not disputed by the Assessing Officer . We also find that these two reports do not consider or controvert the contents of Certificate of the Sr. Asst. Director of Horticulture, Zilla Panchayat, Puttur dt.10.12.2008 which certify that, after inspection of the assessee's agricultural lands situated at Puttur Taluk, in these fertile lands are approx. 6,000 yielding arecanut trees, 2,000 yielding coconut trees and sub-crops like vanilla, pepper, bananas, etc. It is seen that the Assessing Officer has not considered and controverted the contents of this certificate dt.10.12.2008 but has brushed aside and ignored this certificate which pertains t....