AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of agricultural income of Rs. 89,52,1987- declared by the assessee, income of Rs. 86.90,6987- is not agricultural being taxable as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. * holding that agricultural income derived from lands belonging to directors & shareholder/ employees etc. to whom moneys were advanced by the company for purchase of lands and from whom the possession of land was taken by the company under an arrangement, was not eligible for exemption u/s 10(1) of the Act. * In making an arbitrary estimate of agricultural income of Rs. 2,61,500 only-. 2. The order of the Ld CIT (A) is ex- facie perverse for the following reasons: * the Ld CIT(A) has capriciously and arbitrarily ignored all evidences including the Khasra / ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven lands to the assessee company for cultivation." 2. The brief facts of the case is that assessee is a company who filed its return of income on 30.10.2001 declaring loss of Rs. 2837920/-. During the course of assessment proceedings it is noticed that the assessee has claimed agricultural income exempt u/s 10 of Rs. 895215198/- by cultivation of different types of flowers as well as Wheat, sugarcane, rice, pulses, mustard and other cash crops. During the course of hearing the assessee was asked to substantiate the agricultural income, however, ld Assessing Officer disbelieved the claim of the assessee and taxed income from agriculture amounting to Rs. 11008701/- u/s 68. After setting of the loss total income was also determined at nil.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestigated. 5. The ld DR objected to the application of the additional ground stating that unless the assessee accepts the order of the ld Assessing Officer the additional computational ground cannot be admitted. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The assessee has just pleaded that if the agricultural income is required to be added then addition should have only been after reducing the peak credit by the amount already accepted by the ld AO as agricultural income and also after considering the amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee on agricultural operations. This ground only speaks about the computation after examination and assessment of agricultural income. Further this ground is only technical relating to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 and 2005-06 where in all the three years, the Assessing officer has accept the claim of agricultural income after due scrutiny. All these evidences have come into existence after the passing of the impugned order dated 01.03.2005 by the ld CIT(A). These items of evidences have direct relevance of deciding the issues and allegations/ findings in the impugned order of the ld AO and CIT(A). For the reason these evidence could not have been produced before the lower authorities. All these pieces of evidence are objective in character and are necessary for the disposal of the appeal 8. Therefore on the basis of the above application the ld AR vehemently contested that the above additional evidences goes to the root of the matter and they ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nity of hearing to the assessee. 12. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal for the Assessment Year 2001-02:- 1. The Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in passing the ex-parte order despite the fact that appellant's representative had meticulously repetitively appeared before various ClT(A)'s from 2005 onwards and placed voluminous evidences on record, which have all been ignored by CIT(A) altogether. 3. The l.d CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that the impugned assessment was validly reopene....