TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the income in question is exempt and question of making it taxable does not arise on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no income derived by the Appellant from dairy farming on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal without affording adequate opportunity of hearing on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 8. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity." 3. The ld. AR of assessee submitted that written submissions had already been filed on 23.10.2018 and the appeal may be decided by considering the written submissions. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A). 4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that the issue in dispute was decided by CIT(A) as per para 5 of his order w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me. 2. The Appellant furnished the details in relation to the agriculture activity by way of RTC and crop information. The learned AO requested the Dy. Director of Horticulture (ZP) Tumkur to conduct inspection and furnish report on quantitative details of crops grown, number of trees, approximate income and probable expenditure. 3. The learned Dy. Director of horticulture reportedly furnished his report to the AO wherein he determined the Gross Income from agriculture to be Rs. 25,95,540/- and Cost of Cultivation as Rs. 8,95,331/- and thus the net income as Rs. 17,00,200/-. It is necessary to point out at this point that a copy of the said report was never provided to the Appellant, in order to enable the Appellant to point out objections in this regard. 4. The Appellant submitted before the AO that her income from agriculture is more than what has been determined by the Horticulture department as the report did not take into consideration the cultivation of Ragi which was also not considered by the horticulture department as the report was prepared on the basis of what was being cultivated in 2017 and not what was actually cultivated in F.Y. 201415. The Appellant further su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out the manner of compensation to the permanent labors. Therefore, the learned AO must appreciate the facts presented by the Appellant in the manner and extent explained by the Appellant and not stretch or manipulate with it unless he has independent material to buttress such an approach. Except the Appellant's information and explanation regarding the expenditure incurred and manner and method of managing the agriculture activity, there is no independent examination by the learned AO except relying on the horticulture department report - which was prepared on a mechanical manner without appreciation with the Appellant. b. Further, the observation of the learned AO that the Appellant could not have cultivated without incurring expenditure shows lack of understanding of agricultural practices. The learned AO failed to appreciate that the labour with the Appellant are permanent labour. There are two methods to engaging labour viz., engaging labour only for task-specific jobs on daily-wage basis where expenditure incurred his high, and another method is the traditional method wherein agriculturist engages labour permanently by giving them a residence on the farm wherein they t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Expenditure towards labour, cattle, etc., 2,50,000 Net Agriculture Income 25,00,000 f. The learned AO failed to appreciate that there is a dispute here only withregards to the expenditure portion and not income portion and the relevant expenditure in the case of the Appellant has already been explained before the AO but the AO chose to stick to the theoretical calculations and not the factual explanations by the Appellant. g. In order to buttress the submissions of the Appellant as regards the expenditure being minimal in monetary terms, the Appellant is filing an affidavit swearing the contents of this written submission. h. It is a settled law that affidavit is also an evidence and the department is bound to accept the submission of the assessee, unless it has a reason to believe on the merits of the case that the submission is not true. The Appellant's style of organic agriculture and traditional labour employment is very common in agriculture and therefore the department would not be justified in turning blind eye to the facts presented by Assessee herself. i. Further, the AO is not justified in making addition in the hands of the Appellant without su....