TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t appeals sought to set aside the impugned orders dated 01.03.2017 & 14.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar qua the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-14 respectively on the identical grounds inter alia that :- "ITA NO.1128/Del/2018 '1. That delay in filing appeal may very kindly be condoned as the appellant was hospitalized. 2. That ITO & CIT (A) erred on facts in disallowing agricultural income shown by the appellant at Rs. 4917000/- & restricting it to Rs. 2417000/- by ITO & Rs. 3042000/- by CIT (A). 3. That order of ITO & CIT (A) may please be set aside. ITA NO.1129/Del/2018 1. That ITO & CIT (A) erred on facts in disallowing agricultural income sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s who has partly allowed the appeals by confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 18,75,000/- & Rs. 12,50,000/- for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Undisputedly, assessee has claimed to cultivate the land of 250 bighas taken on lease @ Rs. 1,000/- per bigha which has not been questioned by the AO. It is also not in dispute that AO as well as ld. CIT (A) have declined to accept the quantum of income c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the assessee; that AO has not preferred to enforce the attendance of the witnesses and relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Orissa Corp. 159 ITR 78 (SC), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Sheo Narian Duli Chand 72 ITR 766 (All.), Nathu Ram Premchand vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All.), and coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Mukesh V Prajapati vs. ITO in ITA No.2118/Ahm/2007. 9. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee contended that since the land in question was taken by the assessee at nominal lease rent and was submerged with water i.e. inundated, the same cannot produce the highly inflated agricultural income @ Rs. 11,500/- per bigha an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... attention towards Annexure 'A' annexed with the assessment order which is Udran Khatauni in which land in question is recorded as Rajwaha Jalmagan Bhoomi. No doubt, this Annexure 'A' was also provided by the assessee to AO but was issued on 07.05.2010 and cannot be found relevant for the years under consideration i.e. 2013-14 & 2014-15 particularly when assessee has made a specific request to the AO as well as ld. CIT (A) for physical inspection of the land in question to check its quality but AO has not preferred to make any physical inspection rather proceeded to estimate the income on the basis of guesswork. 13. Fasli khasra brought on record by the assessee, available at pages 24 & 25 of the paper book, is an official document prepa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orities to conduct physical inspection of land in question so as to actually assess its quality and production capacity. AO has not even preferred to examine the persons who were engaged in the agricultural production by the assessee and also not examine the persons who have purchased the agricultural produce from him during the year under consideration. 16. When all the documents have been brought on record by the assessee during assessment proceedings but not examined by the AO assessee cannot put again and again in the same assessment proceedings and all the documents relied upon by the assessee presumed to have been accepted by the AO. Even, at no point of time, assessee has been directed by the AO to produce the concerned persons wh....