TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g to 'assessment after partition of a HUF;. Both Representatives suggested adjudication of this appeal in priority. In this order (supra), Assessing Officer rejected the claim of existence of HUF, consequential partition of the same, claim of agricultural income a source of investment in properties etc. Otherwise, HUF filed the returns of income and assessed tax under the I.T. Act prior to the passing of the said order u/s 171 of the Act. We shall now take up the said crucial appeal ITA No.367/PUN/2017 in the coming paragraphs of this order. ITA No.367/PUN/2017 - By Assessee (Order u/s 171 r.w.s. 254 of the Act) 4. Facts: Shri Maruti N. Navale, claimed to be Karta of M.N.Navale Bigger HUF filed an application u/s.171 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 04.09.2007. Vide this application, a claim of partition of M.N.Navale (Bigger HUF), within the meaning of the provisions of section 171 of the Act, was made and heavy reliance was placed by the assessee, on the Compromise Decree passed by the Civil Court, Pandharpur in support of existence of Bigger HUF and existence of the alleged HUF properties which were claimed to be partitioned by the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt, Pandharpur, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the said decree is nothing but a family settlement made out by Shri M.N. Navale and the Court never had an occasion to examine the legalities of existence of HUF and the HUF properties quantification thereof. It is merely a consent decree which is not binding in matter of income tax proceedings. 7. Before CIT(A) in first round: Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and vide his order dated 29.12.2009, Ld. CIT(A)-II, Pune dismissed the appeal of the assessee and on the issue of consent decree, the CIT(A) held as under: "in the appellant's case by way of an afterthought, an Idea of a Bigger HUF was introduced after the search and seizure operation u/s.132, for which the route of filing a partition suit in the civil court was resorted to. However, the effect of the Suit and the consequential decree would be that the cash and gold ornaments seized u/s.132 from the residence of Shri M.N. Navale and the consequential statement u/s.132(4) recorded during the search with regard to this seizure, as also any resultant and consequential proceedings under the Act, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssue of quantification also, the assessee furnished some workings, which were not considered seriously considering the absence of third party evidences in support of the claim of the assessee. We find the assessee relied on the data maintained by the Rahori Mahatma Phule Agricultural University. These details were rejected out rightly by the revenue giving no explanation. In our opinion, such rejection is not fair for the reason that the estimation must have some scientific basis and the data of the Mahatma Phule Agricultural University (MPAU) with necessary changes may constitute a reasonable basis of estimate including agricultural income of the lands claimed by the assessee. The estimation of agricultural income based on the MPAU data was approved in principle of course with necessary changes, vide the orders of this Tribunal, Pune. In the cases of Sri Dattatreya Waman Patil (PAN: ATUP P2995E) ITA No.904/PN/08 (Asstt. Year 2005-06) and also in the case of Shri PaUI Dilip Baburao (PAN: ALJPP5777D) vide ITA No 337/PN/06 Block period 1996-97 to 2002-03 and others. Therefore, as already discussed above, we directed the AO to re-examine the issue after reconsidering the data furnishe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Government or its officer is the subject matter of the said suit or on which of the proceedings or order made are intended to be set aside or modified by the Assessee by the said Civil Suit. It is an admitted fact that the said suit is merely a Compromise Decree between the assessee and one of the coparceners and no government or its officer is involved. It Is clear from the provisions of section 293 that "No suit shall be brought in any civil to set aside or modify any proceeding taken or order made under this Act, and no prosecution, suit or other proceeding shall He against the Government or any officer of the Government for anything in good faith done or Intended to be done under this Act". Thus, the arguments of the Ld DR, both oral and in writing, have to be dismissed and it is our opinion, the case laws relied upon by Ld DR are misplaced. Therefore, there is no applicability of the \ provisions of section 293 of the Act to the Instant suit or assessee. Accordingly, the grounds are decided protanto." 9. Summation of proceedings: Therefore, essentially, what the Tribunal did in the first round, as per the reasons recorded therein, that the existence of HUF with agricultur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ills. Further, the assessee submitted 7/12 extracts for the relevant pieces of land claimed to be belonging to the Bigger HUF for some years since 1952, located in and around villages Ekhatpur and Sangola. Thus, the assessee did not furnish the complete details for the relevant years for this period of almost 50 years to indicate the area cultivation for agricultural, earning of income, type of crop etc. The requisite primarily records like purchase bills, sale bills, vouchers, receipts for sale of cash, crops, sugarcane, cotton, onion, fruits etc. were not submitted by the assessee in support of aforementioned statements/figures. 11. Enquiries by the Assessing Officer: That further during the course of assessment proceedings, since no documentary evidences were furnished by the assessee, Inspector was sent to Village Ekhatpur on few occasions to make enquiry about the state of affairs of agricultural activities in the area around villages Ekhatpur and Sangola and collected certain information from some of the local farmers. It was reported by the Inspector that the lands allegedly owned by the HUF from 1952, were mostly fallow lands, wherein changes of reasonable agricultural i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the benefit of an exemption has to establish it." In the case of Gopi Ram Lila Vs. CIT, 86 Taxmann 348, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has categorically held that "the onus is on the assessee to show the extent of the agricultural income." Since the assessee did not produce any corroborative evidence in support of its claim of agricultural income, as per the directions of the Tribunal in first round, the Assessing Officer obtained data from independent agencies and as per the directions of the Tribunal, the data of MPKV with necessary changes may constitute a reasonable basis of estimate including agricultural income of the lands claimed by the assessee. The estimation of agricultural income based on the MPKV data has been approved in principle with necessary changes vide the order of the ITAT, Pune in the case of Sri Dattatraya Waman Patil in ITA No.904/PN/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06 and also in the case of Shri Patil Dilip Baburao in ITA No.337/PN/2006, Block Period 1996-97 to 2002-03 and others. Of course, the estimation of agricultural income out of trees i.e. fruits/vegetables/sugarcane was the issues in those appeals. The estimation of agricultural income of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30/03/2012), the year wise agricultural income of the assessee HUF is estimated by applying the following formula: - Agricultural income claimed by the assessee in the charts submitted during the proceeding. Less- Income claimed from "sale of live stock" Balance amount 10% of this balance amount is to be treated as the actual agricultural income the HUF for the respective Financial Year. Accordingly, the computation of estimated agricultural income of the assessee HUF is given below:- Sr. No. F.Y. Gross Agricultural income claimed by assessee (Before any expenses) Income from sale of livestock (B) (A)-(B) i.e. (C) 10% of (C) being agricultural income estimated 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1952-53 102345 19675 82670 8267 2 1953-54 104207 17865 86342 8634 3 1954-55 109026 26270 82756 8276 4 1955-56 125879 30350 95529 9553 5 1956-57 125622 29550 96072 9607 6 1957-58 118734 32400 86334 8633 7 1958-59 118601 33200 85401 8540 8 1959-60 174737 46700 128037 12804 9 1960-61 202825 55800 14702....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03-04 2772630 1245700 1526930 152693 53 2004-05 4390424 1841800 2548624 254862 54 2005-06 6220295 2728600 3491695 349169 TOTAL 50333244 17307131 33026113 3302611 Thus, the total net agriculture income of the HUF for the period from F.Y. 1952-53 to 2005-06 is fairly estimated at Rs.33,02,611/-, out which the assessee HUF's members could spend for their household expenses, children's education, daughter's marriages, medical expenses, family functions, religious ceremonies and so on. 14. From the above chart, it is also concluded as under:- 1) The assessee HUF has claimed huge agricultural income, a claim which is not supported by the facts of the case and by any independently verifiable documentary evidences. 2) In fact, the agricultural income for each year is seen to be a very small amount just enough for the subsistence of the families of Shri. M. N. Navale's Parents, brothers and his own family. 3) There is no possibility of any substantial savings or surplus out of the aforesaid agricultural income, which the said HUF could have possibly utilized for making inves....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while setting aside the earlier order u/s 171. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer erred in ignoring yield from crops which are not recorded in 7/12 extracts. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer erred in ignoring sale proceeds of fodder and manure in determining agricultural income. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer erred in adopting cost as per MPKV data without adjusting for deficiencies and specific circumstances applicable to the case of the assessee HUF. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer erred in ignoring live stock income in adopting amount available for investment. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer erred in holding that the assessee has no investible surplus from agricultural income and the income is merely sufficient to meet house hold expenses. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer erred i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olding properties of Bigger HUF, the Assessing Officer gave a categorical finding that the said HUF is certainly left with properties of the grandparents amounting to 60.40 acres of land and the same is the basis for generation of agricultural income since 1952. Further, in quantifying the agricultural income in the assessments since 1952 @ 10% of the reported agricultural income in return of income as the net agricultural income (after substracting the livestock income) of the assessee, Assessing Officer partly accepted the assessee's claim of gross agricultural income indirectly and rejected the MPKV data and also the claims of agricultural holding of above 188 acres of agricultural lands. Assessing Officer held that agricultural income so calculated is meager and not adequate for acquiring agricultural lands, other properties, valuables and also personal withdrawals for the copartners. 18(B). In this regard, before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for directing the Assessing Officer to accept the claims of the assessee made before the ITAT now. These claims include (i) the rejection of the adhocism of calculating the net income applying the 10% flat rate on the income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... parties submitted for considering the same as a gross agricultural income before the said agricultural expenses is considered. The livestock, fodder and manure receipts are discussed separately. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished the following written submissions :- "63.1 In its submissions in para xix(b), the learned DR has objected to considering receipts for crops other than 7 crops considered in working for A Y 2002-03. 63.2 The assessee submits that in the working now furnished in paper book 16, only gross receipts from 7 crops have been considered. 64.1 In its submissions in para xix(d), the AO has objected to inclusion of fodder and manure in the gross receipts. 64.2 The assessee submits that in the working now furnished in paper book 16, gross receipts from fodder and manure have not been separately considered. 64.3 Without prejudice, the assessee objects to the logic used that when by product sale is considered, fodder is considered. The assessee submits that its claim for fodder is supported by huge fallow land even as per the AO and not sale of by products as fodder. Further by products have been considere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il (supra) and Shri Patil Dilip Baburao (supra) were cited. However, there is no case mentioned by both parties about the relevant formula for cereal/millet. It is the submission of the assessee that this cereal/millet does not involved much the expenditure as they are dry land crops. Therefore, the formula of 65:35 ratio (agricultural income : agricultural expenditure) was proposed. This request is made notwithstanding the MPKV data with adjustments, if any. When reference is made by the Tribunal of its existing direction on MPKV data, referring to the loss figures mentioned in the MPKV data sheet, ld. Counsel submitted that this MPKV data collected by the Assessing Officer is for the purpose of arriving at the Governmental Support Price to be fixed for the farmers of those areas. Therefore, as per the ld. AR, these MPKV data needs amendment/adjustment to apply to the assessee. In this regard, ld. Counsel brought to our notice the page 1788 of the Paper Book where the gross yield and cost of agricultural activities were tabulated for 4 cereal/millet/cottons & proper/complete data is available for these crops and a reliable agricultural income/expenditure formula can be derived. Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessee is owning 60 acres of land since the year 1952. By any standards 60 acres of agricultural land is a large holding just at the time India gained independence. Even if one were to discount the possibility of assessee HUF rearing livestock for selling them, it cannot be denied that an entity owning 60 acres of agricultural land in the year 1952 would be owning a few bullocks and cows used for agricultural activity. The nature of expense recorded in MPKV cost sheets is of hire of bullocks for carrying out agricultural activities. Therefore, one can make a reasonable assumption that there would have been no need to hire bullock by the assessee HUF. Similarly, purchase of manure is in addition to purchase of fertilizers. Once purchase of fertilizer is already considered in cost working, there is no need to consider purchase of manure by a entity owning bullock and milch cows. The last item reduced is incidental expenses, which though a small amount is merely an estimate and not supported by specifics. The assessee therefore submits that all 9 items, 6 originally considered while making submissions to the AO and 3 further reduced while making the present working have been c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which reduced from 48.96 gives a cost percentage of 36.72%. If cost is 36.72%, profit will be 63.28% Which is near to 65% adopted by the assessee. 56. The assessee therefore submits that if factor of inflation in cost estimates of MPKV is factored and 9 items of cost which do not relate to the assessee to determine cash income, the profit percentage on sale price works out to 65%. Comments on submissions of the DR on cost 57.1 The learned DR has furnished written submissions along with its own version of alternative income working. The department has furnished cost working by excluding only 6 cost originally proposed by the assessee and according to the same the profit percentage works out to 29.48%. 57.2 The assessee submits that as discussed above, even the other three items do not apply to the case of the assessee HUF and the same have to be excluded. Further the revised cost working both by the assessee and the department has not factored the fact that the Central Government has in each of the year in which data is received by the DDI from Central Government, declared MSP which is lower than cost estimated by Govt of Maharashtra which has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me other receipts: (1) Regarding the live stock income, it is the case of the assessee that the live stock income was consequential to the agricultural activities undertaken by the assessee on his agricultural (HUF) lands. Generally, all agriculturists maintains the livestock like cows, cattle, goats, etc. Merely on the basis of estimation, the assessee worked out the live stock income i.e. purchase and sale of cattle, animals etc and claimed the said income exempt income. This is the way of the livestock-agricultural income was reflected in the returns of the assessee. The same was considered as source of income for explaining the aforementioned unaccounted assets such as property, jewellery, seized cash etc. In the assessment and remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of livestock income as exempt income. However, Assessing Officer accepted the entire income as the income of the assessee. Assessing Officer proceeded to tax the same wherever, the taxation is possible i.e. for assessment year 2002-03 and other later assessment years. Such income for assessment year 1953-54 till 200102, Assessing Officer did not tax such livestock income. Hence, the same was pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quential to the fact of agricultural activities on the lands of the assessee. 20. We have so far narrated the Assessing Officer's finding on the (i) agricultural income; (ii) livestock income; and, (iii) other manure/fodder income and the Assessing Officer's treatment to the claims of the assessee. Now, we shall deal with the deduction of agricultural expenses against the gross agricultural income. Regarding this deduction, in the absence of the direct evidence, the Assessing Officer held 90% of the gross agricultural income should relate to the expenditure. No deduction is allowed from the livestock, manure and fodder receipts. However, the CIT(A) allowed 5% additional relief and held that 85% should be the expenses account. On this aspect, now before us, ld. AR pleaded for treating 65:35 as reasonable. 21. Formula of 65:35 : Further, on the formula of 65:35 (income : expenditure), the assessee filed the written submission at various occasions explaining (i) the yield and earning of the gross agricultural receipts; (ii) cost of cultivation related issues; (iii) the correctness of MPKV data and its relevance to the assessee; and, (iv) the correctness of earning of livestoc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ayog shows that MSP is accepted by farmers as giving them fair return sufficient to make some investments out of the income earned. Therefore, one can safely presume that cost as per MPKV is inflated by a small percentage. Further, one can make a reasonable assumption that Central Government would have factored a return of at least 20% in the MSP price for the farmer. If 20% is considered on sale price, it will amount to 25% on purchase price. If 25% of revised cost of 48.96% is considered as excessive cost estimate, then it works out to 12.24% which reduced from 48.96 gives a cost percentage of 36.72%. If cost is 36.72%, profit will be 63.28% Which is near to 65% adopted by the assessee. 56. The assessee therefore submits that if factor of inflation in cost estimates of MPKV is factored and 9 items of cost which do not relate to the assessee to determine cash income, the profit percentage on sale price works out to 65%." 23. Thus, pleading against the formula of 51:49 (income : expenses), ld. AR argued strongly in favour of 65:35 formula. However, when certain questions are raised by the Bench on the stated claim of adjustments of 20% by the assessee to the said MSP, n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tock of Rs.11,47,500/-, (ii) less sale of manure of Rs.34,600/-, less sale of fodder of Rs.26,400/-. In the process, the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim and adopted a new way of quantifying the agricultural income of Rs.1,43,880/- being 10% of the assessee's gross receipts agricultural income at Rs.21,01,455/-. The Assessing Officer did not completely deny existence of the income taxed the same as income from other sources. In the process, the live stock income of Rs.11,47,500/- is treated as taxable other income in adopting the said 10%, the Assessing Officer compared the net income of Rs.83,487/- with gross receipts of Rs.10,96,784/- of the assessee. Giving ratio 8.75%, the Assessing Officer rejected the said percentage before gross estimating the same at the rate of 10%. Around some figure falls under the rate of 10%, the Assessing Officer applied 10% on the total agricultural income of Rs.14,38,800/- to determine the estimated income of Rs.1,43,880/-. In the process, the Assessing Officer held that agricultural expenses would be 90% of the gross receipt. Assessee objected to the said ratio of 90:10 (Agricultural Expenditure : Agricultural Income). In the backgro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under:- (a) The comments given earlier in Written Submission-2,on the adoption of ratios of 50% and 65% are reiterated and it is stated that the assessee HUF has adopted two ratios i.e. 65% of the gross agricultural income and 50% of the gross agricultural income. Both these ratios are without any verifiable basis. Further, the ratio of 50% is observed to be excessive in so far as if the surplus worked is reworked after considering the expenses viz. bullock power, manure an incidental charges, then the surplus available to the assessee HUF is reduced substantially in so far as there is deficit in all the years under consideration. (b) The comments given earlier on the quantum of household expenses adopted are reiterated and it is stated that the estimation of the household expenses claimed to have been incurred by the assessee HUF are without any basis and have been estimated at very low amounts. (c) The appellant has not submitted any new evidence in so far as the chart now submitted is just a reworking of the earlier chart submitted. The following observations made earlier are resubmitted and reiterated as under:- > The working submitted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer could not be found MPKV data. Page 1744 and 1745 of the Paper Book, para 3.4.5 mentioning that it is never case of loss, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the reports of the Niti Aayog. Further, referring to the contents of para 5.3.5, ld. Counsel highlighted the facts relating to the agricultural is a main source of income and not the agricultural losses. Further, referring to data given in said para, ld. Counsel highlighted the facts relating to the agricultural income source to certain household. He also submitted the facts MSP scheme of the Government held for the farmers in generation of agricultural income in that area. In fact, the case of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that if MPKV reports are valid qua the facts of agricultural product, it is a case of loss, which is not the case of earned agricultural income and, therefore, for the purpose of cost production data from MPKV must consider. On cost of production, the case of the Revenue is that the Assessing Officer answered these facts and with due regard to the MPKV, he estimated the income of the assessee at the 10% of the gross receipts as per the scheme of the assessee. Thus, it is the case of the Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven in the following paragraphs. Ground no.1 29. Ground no.1 relates to the non-compliance to the Tribunal's directions: The assessee's claim regarding the existence of Maruti Nivrutti Navale Bigger HUF and corpus of HUF (60.40 acres of the land since 1952), the Tribunal accepted the same and, however, it remanded the issue of quantification of land holdings earnings from the said lands to Assessing Officer. In the first round of proceedings, the issues are recommended to the file of the Assessing Officer for quantifying the agricultural income earned by the assessee, the availability of the surplus agricultural income accounting for the investments in additional agricultural lands/other assets after netting the personal expenditure. The relevant para from the order of the Tribunal dated 07.2.2017 (supra) was already extracted in the preceding paragraphs. In this regard, the Assessing Officer was under directions to consider the MPKV data as a source data with the necessary modification. 29(A). However, the Assessing Officer did not comply with the above directions of the Tribunal (supra) for his own stated reasons and, eventually, estimated the agricultural income of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n @ 10% and the reasons for doing so. It is the case of the assessee that, if Rs.100 is gross agricultural income, around 35% of the same is incurred on agricultural expenditure. Certainly, Rs.90/- is never spent to earn Rs.10/-. It is also born out of the records by way of the order of the Tribunal (supra) that the said agricultural income is vary from one crop to the other crop. The expenditure incurred for quantifying the serial crops which are annually seasonal crops is different from the expenditure incurred on the perennial trees. In any case, neither the assessee nor the Revenue has clear data on this crop-wise expenditure details. Therefore, considering the direction of the Tribunal (supra) in the first round of proceedings in assessee's own case, the MPKV data has become extremely relevant for the agricultural expenditure with details also. However, there is requirement of adjusting the agricultural cost details to the data covered by the MPKV in that area/district. On these details, the assessee furnished a table, copy of this placed at page 1788 of the Paper Book. The table shows that the adjustments made to the cost details. It is the case of the assessee that the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,262.24 2,375.09 VIII Manure 317.45 685.03 322.39 - IX Incidental charges 128.05 152.05 129.32 21.08 CIT(A) Total cost not relatable to 6,533.05 11,156.95 7,219.72 9,698.15 D Cost as can be relatable to HUF's land and family conditions (B-C) 4,707.95 7,277.34 4,417.75 9,252.96 E Modified per quintal Cost relatable to HUF (D/A) 271.20 359.20 220.89 1,017.93 E(a) Total cost 1,12,002.13 25,470.69 24,297.63 41,638.32 F Cost as taken by AO (per quintal) 459.10 844.35 407.55 2,084.97 F(a) Sale value by adopting yield and sale rate as per MPKV (page 1749 of paper book 12) 2,25,361 56,850.00 55,847.00 77,436.00 4,15,494.00 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he gross agricultural income and 50% of the gross agricultural income. Both these ratios are without any verifiable basis. Further, the ratio of 50% is observed to be excessive in so far as if the surplus worked is reworked after considering the expenses viz. bullock power, manure an incidental charges, then the surplus available to the assessee HUF is reduced substantially in so far as there is deficit in all the years under consideration. (b) The comments given earlier on the quantum of household expenses adopted are reiterated and it is stated that the estimation of the household expenses claimed to have been incurred by the assessee HUF are without any basis and have been estimated at very low amounts. (c) The appellant has not submitted any new evidence in so far as the chart now submitted is just a reworking of the earlier chart submitted. The following observations made earlier are resubmitted and reiterated as under:- > The working submitted by the assessee HUF is a pure estimation and is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. > In estimating the various elements of cost as per the method arising from MPKV data, the assessee HUF has ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing on the agricultural income and agricultural expenditure of the assessee for the assessment year 2002-03, for which data is collected by the Revenue and analyzed by the assessee as mentioned in the earlier paragraphs of this order, we find the adjudication of quantification of agricultural income (on gross agricultural income and agricultural expenditure and income for rest of the assessment years involving from the assessment year 1953-54 onwards) are relevant. In our opinion, considering the principle of judicial discipline, the finding of the Tribunal is in the first round is sacrosanct. MPKV data needs to be used for this object. Ld. AR demonstrated how MPKV can be utilized with data necessary modification. In principle, the same is in order and hence acceptable. In effect, the ratio of 51:49 (Income : Expenditure) should be the base for quantification of agricultural income. Accordingly, ground no.1 is allowed. Ground no.2 39. Ground no.2 relates to the "yield from crops grown in agricultural lands" of the HUF. The relevant details are already discussed in preceding paragraphs. The base paper for this purpose of crops grown in the agricultural lands are the 7/12 extra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for the accounting for investments, if any. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the taxation of livestock income and the taxation of fodder/manure income is totally denied but it is taxed not considered for explaining the sources of the other investments with appropriate time. 41. In this regard, on considering and hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that the fodder and manure receipts do not constitute agricultural income. So far as taxation of the same as income from other sources, we confirm the same, however, it should be available for explaining the sources of the assets/investments discovered during the search action or any other investments. To that extent, we are agree with the Assessing Officer's contentions that the livestock income as well as the receipts from fodder and manure are taxable. No credible evidence is furnished by the assessee in support of generation from livestock/fodder/manure. Therefore, taxing them on other sources income is approved. In other words, the Assessing Officer's decisions so far as taxation of such livestock/manure/fodder income for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2006-07 is concerned, the Assessing Officer has right....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the Central Government for a different purpose of recommending the support price for the farmers of the Region. We have also noticed that the inclusion of certain relevant expenditure to the assessee to be Maruti Nivrutti Navale, Bigger HUF and held the requirement of adjustments by way of reducing the said 9 heads of expenses from the cost estimated by the MPKV. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee never paid interest either on the working capital or on the fixed capital. The cost of depreciation is not a real cost. There is no whisper about the assessee hiring labour or bullock power or purchase of manure etc. Therefore, the adjustment requested by the assessee before us to the cost estimated by the MPKV appears reasonable and sustainable. 44. In our view, the said ration is held to be proper and sustainable in this case of the assessee. We have also held that the Revenue has not made out a case that all the 9 heads of expenditure [(i) interest on working capital; (ii) depreciation of farm instrument (being notional cost); (iii) rental value of land; (iv) interest on fixed capital; (v) family labour-male (being notional cost); (vi) family labour-female (being notional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee is appropriate and acceptable. We do not appreciate the Assessing Officer's stand of taxing certain income; but not considering the said taxed income for explaining the investments. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to consider the said taxed livestock income accounting for explaining the sources of the assets/properties. Accordingly, ground no.5 is allowed. Ground no.6 47. Ground no.6 relates to the Assessing Officer's finding about the absence of investable surplus from agricultural income after considering the household expenses: The background facts of the issue include that the Assessing Officer quantified the surplus income on estimation basis which is disapproved by us in principle. As per estimation of the Assessing Officer, the income quantified i.e. net agricultural expenses is so meager which is not even adequate enough to meet the household expenses. Now, having dismissed the Assessing Officer's stands, there is a requirement for calculating the agricultural income and addition of other income of the assessee to the former for all the years under consideration in the light of the directions mentioned above. Accordingly, the finding of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1972-73 1,45,454 1973-74 1,22,038 1974-75 95,118 1975-76 96,058 1976-77 98,531 1977-78 1,01,732 1978-79 1,29,297 1979-80 1,59,461 1980-81 1,81,840 1981-82 1,73,877 1982-83 1,46,402 1983-84 1,76,666 1984-85 1,84,026 1985-86 1,38,658 1986-87 60,027 1987-88 2,31,135 1988-89 2,36,021 1989-90 1,92,716 1990-91 3,96,783 1991-92 3,25,120 1992-93 3,50,666 1993-94 5,20,316 1994-95 3,03,365 1995-96 6,91,193 1996-97 3,63,404 1997-98 7,11,603 1998-99 8,49,650 99-2000 13,62,112 2000-01 11,77,311 2001-02 11,15,230 2002-03 8,41,537 2003-04 13,78,225 2004-05 12,10,867 2005-06 14,61,604 2006-07 16,02,968 2007-08 14,52,368 Total 2,03,05,333 50. Thus, from the above chart, subject to the needful correctness by the Assessing Officer, the total agricultural income earned by the assessee, Bigger HUF since 1953 (A.Ys. 1953-54 to 2000-01 works out to Rs.1,12,42,535/- plus Rs.90,62,798/- (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) totaling to Rs.2,03,05,333/-. The agricultural income for the block asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al in favour of the assessee with better formula. Further, the assessee's formula for 65:35% (35% towards agricultural expenses) 50:50 are also rejected as they are not in tune with the existing directions of the Tribunal (vide para 8). Judicial discipline assumes significance. (B). Livestock Receipts: Tribunal confirms that the said income is no longer agricultural income exempt from tax. We confirm the action of Assessing Officer in taxing the same from the A.Y. 2001-02 onwards. Assessee failed to demonstrate how the same is exempt. We approve the Assessing Officer's action. However, Assessing Officer is under obligation to include the said income in the surplus income of the assessee-HUF for the purposes of explaining the sources of said properties/investments etc. (C). Manure and Fodder Receipts: Like in case of Live-stock Receipts, for want of discharge of onus, we confirm the AO/CIT(A)'s findings in matters of denying claim of exemption to these receipts. Hence, the same constitutes non-agricultural income. Consequently, the income from this source should be available to the assessee for explaining the source of investments etc. Accordingly, Assessing Officer is ordered....