TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 856
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing office in of enhancing the disallowance of claim of agriculture income by Rs.6,74,710/- by treating the same as Income from Other Sources." 2. On perusal of record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) passed impugned order on 12.07.2017, however, this appeal was filed on 01.05.2019. Thus, there is a delay of 591 days in filing the appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, which is supported by affidavit of assessee. In the application for condonation of delay, the applicant/assessee contended that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) was not received, thus, the assessee was not having any knowledge about the order of Ld. CIT(A). Subsequently, the assessee received penalty order on 24.04.2019. On receipt of such penalty order assessee approached his counsel for consultation. After consultation, the counsel of assessee logging into the e-filing portal of department and found that there was two similarly worded orders of Ld. CIT(A) being order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2017-18/1005673766(1) and order No. ITBA ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence that the order passed by ld CIT(A) was not served upon the assessee within the prescribed time. 5. In the short rejoinder submissions the ld AR for the assessee submits that that in Form-36, the date of service is not correctly mentioned. It may have been recorded that usually the order of ld CIT(A) is receive within one or two weeks. In fact in the present case the order of ld CIT(A) was not served on the assessee. 6. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities. We find that there is no dispute that the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on 12.07.2017. Further, there is no dispute about filing the appeal before Tribunal on 28.04.2019. Before us Ld. AR for the assessee vehemently submitted that order was not served upon the assessee and on e-portal of Department that there were similarly worded two orders of Ld. CIT(A) dated 16.08.2017 & 03.11.2017 respectively. We find that Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee approached for filing appeal by taking remedial action of service of penalty order dated 24.04.2019 and against such penalty order the quantum appeal was filed by assessee on 24.04.2019 and this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come of Rs.22,93,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details of agricultural holding, details of agricultural produce, bills vouchers and expenses. The assessee furnished details of agricultural holding, by filing copy of abstract Form 8A, 7/12 of agricultural lands and bills issued by Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Mandli and Shri Khedut Sahakari Khand Udhyog Mandli. The assessee also furnished working of gross agricultural income of Rs.26,97,150/- from different three sugar Mandali and net agricultural income at Rs.22,93,000/- after deducting expenses of Rs.4,04,150/-. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee has claimed agricultural expenses at 14.98% (about 15%), which is abnormal low. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice on such low percentage of expenses. The assessee filed his reply on 04.09.2015 and submitted that he has total land is 31 hectare 47 are 82 guntha (31-47-82). The assessee received Rs.26,97,150/-from various Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali. The assessee furnished bills and vouchers of various Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali. On analysing such details, the Assessing O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal before the Tribunal. 12. We have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee and the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) for the Revenue. Ground No.1 relates to addition of Rs.2,20,057/-. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee has received Rs.1,51,500/- from Shri Kantha Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali and Rs.17,94,840/- from Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali and Rs.7,50,810/-from Shree Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandali Ltd. The assessee has incurred expenses of Rs.4,04,150/-. Thus, the net agricultural income of assessee is Rs.26,97,150/-. The assessee has filed on record the relevant voucher and receipt. The assessee was also having Rs.2,20,057/- as cash-in-hand and was deposited in account on 13.09.2012 and this amount was received in cash being a part of sale proceed of sugarcane. The assessee was having sufficient agricultural holding. The agricultural holding is not disputed by Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) also. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by taking view that document furnished by assessee is Gujarati language and does not show any specific amount paid in c....