TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ited the source of the agriculture income during the course of proceedings." 2. Briefly stated, the assessee had e-filed her return of income for A.Y 2015-16 on 29.08.2015, declaring an income of Rs. 1,46,34,160/- a/w agriculture income of Rs. 1,03,02,193/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the asesssee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had claimed to have earned net agriculture income of Rs. 1,03,02,193/- from sale of mangoes (kaichi kairi) and various other vegetables. It was observed by the A.O that the assessee had a total land holding of 913.3 guntha (22.82 acres) at Panvel, District: Raigad. However, it was observed by the A.O that a perusal of the 7/12 extracts revealed that most of the aforesaid land was categorized under the head "not fit for agriculture". Out of the total 913.3 guntha (22.82 acres) of land 414.5 guntha (10.36 acres) of land was not fit for agriculture purpose for the entire year. Further, it was observed by the A.O that as per the 7/12 extracts 431.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at only 30% of the total area marked was under agricultural activity during the period 2014-15. No 3ctiv& agriculture was observed for the remaining 70% area of Vihighar land Parcel. Chiple & Koproli:- We have used the Google earth images for the period from Jan 2013 to December 2016. Overall, from the analysis of images no active agriculture was observed for the area of Chiple & Koproli land parcel Approximately 40 % area of marked land parcel was occupied by (he irregularly grown perennial trees/plantations. seems to be social forestry, need to be verified on ground whether it is horticultural plantations (e.g. Mango / Sapota Etc.). Akruli Land: We have used the Google earth images for the period from Jan 2013 to December 2016 Overall, from the analysis of images, it is concluded that two sub-land parcels marked with yellow colour in 2011 & 2012 images (30%), were new plantations, seems to be horticultural in nature (need to be verified on ground) However, 3-4 year horticultural plantation cannot give any substantial produce. No active agriculture was observed for the remaining area of Akruli land parcel Overall, the land parcel was of farmhous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. • In Mustafa All Khan vs. CIT(1948) 16 ITR 330 (PC), the court held that income from sale of forest trees, fruits and flowers growing on land naturally and spontaneously and without the intervention of human agency is not agriculture income. Thus the mango sale is not agricultural income. • Only income from basic operations of cultivation land and requiring the expenditure of human skill and labour on land is agricultural income as held in CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Sahar Roy (SC) 32 ITR 466, CIT Vs Maddi Venkalasubbayya & another (Mad) 20 lTR 151, Papaya Farms Pvt. Ltd Vs PCIT (Mad)325 ITR 60. • The assessee's land is situated within the jurisdiction of Municipality of Panvel and is not assessed to land revenue. As per the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt Anand Bala Bhushan vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (217 ITR 144) the produce from this land is not agricultural income." Accordingly, the A.O on the basis of his aforesaid deliberations concluded that the asessee had disguised her income from "Other sources" of Rs. 1,03,02,193/- as agriculture income earned by her during the year under consideration. After, inter alia, re-chara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A.O in the course of assessment for the year under consideration i.e A.Y. 2015-16 had formed the basis for reopening of its case for A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13, the CIT(A) followed the view of his predecessor and allowed the claim of agriculture income of the assessee to the extent of 80% and disallowed the balance 20% amount. 5. The assesee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R') for the assessee, at the very outset submitted, that the CIT(A) by relying on the order of his predecessor for A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13 had allowed the assessee's claim of agriculture income only to the extent of 80% and had disallowed the balance 20%. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that on further appeal by the assessee the Tribunal had vide its consolidated order for A.Y. 2011-12 in ITA No.4883/Mum/2019; and A.Y. 2012-13 in ITA No.4884/Mum /2019, dated 02.03.2021 had allowed the appeals of the assessee and had vacated the disallowance of the balance 20% of her agriculture income that was sustained by the CIT(A). In sum and substance, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that the assessee's claim of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13, wherein the agriculture income disclosed by the assessee in her return of income was accepted as such: "5. After hearing the rival parties, in this case, we notice that undisputedly, the assessee is the owner of the land measuring 22.82 acres in Panvel, District Raigad. We note that the 7/12 extracts downloaded from the official website of Government of Maharashtra has categorized 70% of the land as not fit for agricultural operation. However, it is also undisputed that there were substantial plantations of mango trees and also seasonable vegetables being grown in the said land. The only objection of the AO is that the assessee is having a farmhouse and income was received from the natural activity which is not agricultural activity as per the provisions of the Act and AO has merely acted on the basis of surmises and conjuncture in estimating 20% of the total receipt as unexplained cash credit without carrying out any further verification from the buyer/purchasers of these agricultural products/produce. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of the AO on the ground that the assessee has incurred a very meager expenses of 2% on agricultural expenses....