TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tively passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called "the AO") under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961(hereinafter called "the Act").We have heard these four appeals through physical hearing mode in Open Court proceedings. 2. At the outset, it is observed that these four appeals were filed late belatedly beyond the time stipulated under Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The separate Appellate Order(s) passed by Ld. CIT(A) for all the four assessment years are all dated 18th September, 2019, which are stated to have been received by assessee on 29th October, 2019, and hence these appeals were ought to have been filed by assessee with Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad(hereinafter called "the tribunal") on or before 28th of December, 2019 as per statutory time provided u/s 253(3), but these appeal were filed by assessee with tribunal on 4th February, 2022, that is belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. All the four appeals were filed by assessee with tribunal with short/deficient appeal fee being deposited with Government Treasury than the appeal fee as prescribed u/s 253(6)(c), and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cient appeal fee by depositing the requisite fee as stipulated u/s 253(6)(c) with Government Treasury. The assessee himself expired on 18th September, 2022 and death certificate dated 18th October, 2022 issued by Registrar (Birth & Death), Nagar Nigam, Zone-3, Katra, Allahabad (Registration no. D-2022:9-91760-003105, dated 18.10.2022) has been filed, which is placed on record in file. The revised From No. 36 is also filed by his son Shri Sudheer Gupta as legal heir of the assessee, wherein it is also stipulated that Mr. Sudheer Gupta and Mrs. Mamta Bhargava are the two Legal Heirs of the assessee, and said revised Form No. 36 is placed on record in file. The ld. Sr. DR fairly submitted that the Bench can take appropriate decision, so far as condonation of delay in filing these four appeals is concerned. We have considered the entire material on record. We have observed that in these four appeals filed by assessee with tribunal on 04.02.2022, the ld. CIT(A) has passed separate appellate orders all dated 18.09.2019, for the four assessment years under consideration. The assessee has admitted to have received these four appellate orders on 29.10.2019, and the appeal's ought to have be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9th December, 2019 to 14th March, 2020 which is delay of 76 days. It is also true that lockdowns announced by Central/State Government's occurred in the entire country with the onset of pandemic corona virus spread in India, and the normal life across India was paralysed due to Corona Virus pandemic and also due to lockdowns announced by Government, causing misery and sufferings to citizen across India. Also keeping in view that the assessee was a super senior citizen (DOB 27.07.1932) bed ridden, paralytic and suffering from old age and disease, dependent upon his children for financial support, we in exercise of our powers u/s 253(5) hold that the assessee has shown sufficient cause in not filing these four appeals in time with tribunal and hence we condone the aforesaid delay. We have also noted while condoning aforesaid delay in filing of these four appeals beyond the time provided u/s 253(3), the appellant claim that he approached the Registry of tribunal on or around 26th December, 2019 (within prescribed time) to file these four appeals with tribunal, but since the appeal fees as provided u/s 253(6)(c) was not pre-deposited by assessee with Government Treasury by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was claimed as an exempt income. The AO issued statutory notice u/s 143(2) dated 24.12.2013 to the assessee. The assessee participated in reassessment proceedings. The AO, during the course of reassessment proceedings, asked assessee to explain sources of deposits in the bank account, to which assessee submitted that the said bank deposits are from sale proceed of House No. 846, University Road, Allahabad which was sold by the assessee in the capacity of Karta of his HUF, amounts received from son as well agricultural income earned by the assessee, as detailed hereunder: The AO observed from sale deed of the aforesaid property, that Rs. 50 lacs sale proceed was received by assessee by cheque, as under: Cheque Number Dated Amount (Rs.) 399554 12.08.2005 5,00,000/- 399599 30.12.2005 5,00,000/- 399560 06.04.2006 2,00,000/- 187227 10.10.2005 3,00,000/- 714195 29.01.2007 6,00,000/- 710692 29.01.2007 3,50,000/- 243408 27.02.2007 25,00,000/- 755690 09.03.2007 50,000/- Total Rs. 50,00,000/- The AO observed that the claim of the assessee that Rs. 18 lacs was deposited b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concile the bank deposits with the sale deeds w.r.t. sale of House no. 846, University Road, Allahabad and to delete the additions if the amount stood verified and reconciled otherwise to confirm the additions, and the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) on this issue has attained finality as it could not be shown by either of the rival parties before us that assessee or Revenue has filed any appeal before tribunal against the aforesaid decision of ld. CIT(A). On the issue of addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- as was made by AO to the income of the assessee, it was submitted by assessee before ld. CIT(A) that the assessee started agricultural work in 1999 on lease land at village Sirsa, Rae Bareli. The assessee took loan from Punjab & Sindh Bank, and started producing aroma grasses from flowers and grass for its customers and also grew grains and vegetables. The assessee enclosed copy of lease deed of agricultural land which the assessee claimed is for ten years but due to ill health, the assessee closed the work of Aroma Grasses in 2008. The assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has not done any business of Aroma oil because it needs marketing and very huge capital. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al produces over a time from 1999 to the year in question. There is no evidence to prove that any basic and subsequent operations were duly performed resulting onto this agricultural income like expenditure on human labour, seeds, manure, pesticide, etc.. AO's contention is that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence whatsoever regarding expenses on plantations and there maintenance as stated above. No details of buyers or evidence of sale of these of flowers, grass, grains and vegetables were submitted before AO. The Supreme Court in CIT v Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC) has held that the land is said to be used for agricultural purposes where the following two types of operations are carried out on such land: The term 'agriculture' in S. 2(1)(b)(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act connotes the entire and integrated activity of an agriculturist performed on the land in order to raise its produce and consists of such basic and essential operations, requiring human skill and labour on the land itself, as the tilling of the soil, sowing of the seeds, planting and similar operations on the land and such other subsequent opera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only job work was being done on labour basis and the applicant had no concern with oil sale of its marketing. The applicant's sale was limited only to agricultural produces. If we go by this theory then it shows that appellant was doing complete business of extraction and sale of oil but trying to break the operations and claim it as exempt u/s 2 of IT Act. But applicant does not have any evidence to prove this activity also. All the submissions of appellant are not backed by any iota of documentary evidence hence they cannot be relied upon. An Income to be "agricultural income"should be derived from land and the land should be used for agricultural purposes. In other words, there should be a nexus between income, land and agriculture operations, by which is meant something done to the land by human or mechanical agency to produce out of the land any crop, tree, plantation or other produce or product. The immediate source of the income must be land or the description or character mentioned in the definition [CIT v Imam Saheb (K.S.) (1969) 71 ITR 742 (Mad)). In the case of Mustafa Ali Khan v. CIT [1948 16 ITR 330 (PC) in which it was held that that income from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case it is well established that appellant has failed to discharge the initial onus of proving that the income earned was in fact agricultural Income. Appellant also failed to prove that any agricultural operations were in fact ever done on the land premises leased by him and finally failed to substantiate that the sale of these flowers, grass, vegetables and grains actually happened. So it is seen that appellant fails on all the main ingredients that are required to prove the nature and source of this income as agricultural income, in order to claim the statutory exemption. With these remarks addition made by the AO is upheld. This ground is dismissed." 5c. The ld. CIT(A) observed that his predecessor have sent a letter dated 28th February, 2017, as under: "As per the Lease Deed, you were required to pay annual rent of Rs.74,160/- in two half yearly installments. You are requested to produce proof of such payments and also submit originals of the receipts given by the lessor. - Please produce the said Lease Deed in original seen. - Please file the copies of your both the Bank accounts for the entire F.Y. 2005-06. - Please e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... HUF u/s 143(3) in A.Y.2007-08 and accepted the sale proceeds and there was no capital gain. That regarding cash deposit in PNB was the agriculture income receipts and loan from others for agriculture produced work. The appellant had no other income except agriculture income." The ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions of Rs. 18 lacs as was made by the AO with directions to AO to verify and reconcile bank deposits with the sale proceeds vide sale deeds w.r.t. sale of house no. 846, University Road, Allahabad, but ld. CIT(A) enhanced the income of the assessee by Rs. 36,00,000/-,by holding as under: "Decision: I have gone through the facts and the written submissions filed along with the details filed enclose therein. Facts in this case are that the applicant sold house no. 846, University Road, Allahabad in two parts Vide Sale deed 10.04.2006 and vide Sale deed 09.03.2007 for which appellant received sale amount in various bank accounts as mentioned above. AO could not locate and corelate the details of cheques mentioned in the sale agreement with the bank statements. AO added Rs. 18,00,000/- accordingly u/s 68 of IT Act. My predecessor CIT(A), Alla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- made is deleted. With regard to the cash deposits in PNB no evidence in regard to the agriculture income receipts and loan from others for agriculture work was submitted during the appellate proceedings in response to the enhancement notice sent to appellant. Appellant has failed to discharge the initial onus of proving that the income earned was in fact agricultural income. Appellant also failed to prove that any agricultural operations were in fact ever done on the land premises leased by him and finally failed to substantiate that the cash deposited in PNB and Standard Chartered Bank are from the agricultural income earned by appellant during the year. With these remarks and in view of the ruling in the case of Avdhesh Kumar Jain vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (1989) 178 ITR 443 (All)it is held that the appellant has failed to shift the onus to prove that cash deposited in both the bank accounts is from agricultural operations and therefore the income is enhanced by Rs. 36,00,000/- on this account. With regard the Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- in MF the applicant has submitted the copy of Chartered Bank, whereas there is withdrawal of Rs. 2,00,000/- 27.01.2006 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seeds expenses and the like on Page 18 to 31 of the Paper book. The appellant also took loan from Punjab and Sindh bank for starting the agriculture work and shown in profit and loss account. The appellant produced and cultivated Palmarosa grass and herbs and it was not grown naturally. He sold the Palmarosa grass directly without any change and shape. Thus the Palmarosa grass, herbs, vegetable and grains are all exempt u/s 2(1A) and 10 A of IT Act. Even the Green Tea leaves sale directly is income from agriculture. Union of India Vs Belgachi Tea Company.Ltd(2008) 170 Taxman 209/304 ITR (SC). In ITAT, Delhi in Sudisha form Nursery VS Income Tax Officer 88 ITD 638 Delhi has allowed growing of Flower is agriculture Income after considering many ruling of H.C and S.C. Earnings from growing creeps and flower is agriculture income. e) The appellant has requested the A.O. at the time of assessment proceeding to verify the fact whether agriculture was going or not? But the A.O never tried to verify from Rai Bareilly IT Department and appellant due to his illness and old age he could not go to Rai Bareilly to collect the evidence. Thus the A.O h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ricultural income was not accepted by Revenue. It was submitted that the assessee was engaged in agricultural activity since 1999 at Rai Bareilly. Copy of agreement for taking on lease agricultural land vide lease deed was enclosed at Page No. 1 to 6 of the Paper Book filed with tribunal. It was submitted that regularly rent was paid towards aforesaid lease of agricultural land. It was submitted that the aforesaid rent for leased agricultural land was paid in cash. The assessee claimed that he started growing Palmorosa grass and other herb along with vegetable and grain, and details are at page No. 12 -31 of the paper-book. Reliance was placed by assessee on the decision in the case of Union of India v. Belgachi Tea Company Ltd. (supra).It was also submitted that the assessee asked AO to verify agricultural income, but the AO did not verify the same. It was submitted that affidavit was filed before AO that the assessee has an agricultural income. With respect to second addition of Rs. 36 lacs as was made by ld. CIT(A) by enhancing income of the assessee, it was submitted that there was an enhancement of income by ld. CIT(A) wherein cash deposit of Rs. 36,00,000/- in PNB was brought....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld. Sr. DR to the page D (written submissions) of the PB filed by department. It was submitted by ld. Sr. DR that agricultural income is not genuine, the AO rightly made the addition to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- by not accepting the claim of assessee that income was from agriculture, which was rightly confirmed by learned CIT(A) by not accepting the claim of the assessee that said amount was agricultural income. On the second issue of enhancement of income by ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that there is enhancement of income by Rs. 36,00,000/- by ld. CIT(A) towards unexplained cash deposits in PNB. Our attention was drawn to assessment order/page 1 /para 3, wherein details of deposits in PNB are stated ( also reproduced by us in this order at page 8). It was submitted that the AO made the addition to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 18 lacs towards unexplained bank deposits as well non acceptance of agricultural income of Rs. 5 lacs. It was submitted that ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 5 lacs as was made by the AO by rejecting the claim of the assessee that this income was from agriculture, while ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions of Rs. 18 lacs with dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome of Rs. 5 lacs claimed as agricultural income, while now before tribunal claim is made that Rs. 16 lacs cash deposited in PNB is agricultural income apart from and addition to claim of agricultural income of Rs. 5 lacs claimed before the AO, while now it is claimed before tribunal that cash deposit of Rs. 20 lacs in PNB was from Mrs. Shashi Singh and Mrs. Anita Kesarwani, Partners of the assessee for constructing flats. It was submitted by ld. Sr. DR that before AO, the assessee claimed that Rs. 12 lacs was transferred from bank account of son to assessee's bank account in PNB, as the said amount was transferred in Standard Chartered Bank, while additions were made for cash deposits in PNB. Thus, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee is making wrong contentions as also changing the contentions before different authorities, and prayers were made to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that the assessment of the assessee was reopened by Revenue for framing re-assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act. Reasons for reopening of the assessment were reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 7 lacs in the return of income filed with the Revenue, which was claimed to be exempt from income-tax. During reassessment proceedings, the claim of the assessee was that he earned agricultural income of Rs. 5 lacs (Page 10/Departmental PB), which was claimed as an exempt income. To support his claim of having earned agricultural income, an un-registered lease deed on plain paper dated 01.07.1999 is submitted, along with covering letter dated 29.06.1999 executed on letter head of 'Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh Trust', the alleged owner of said land. The alleged claim of the assessee is that he took agricultural land admeasuring 12.36 hectares on lease situated at Sirsa Farm in Village Sirsa, Block Harchandpur, Tehsil Rae Bareili, District Rae Bareili, U.P., from 'Raja Jagannath Baksh Singh Trust' on an annual lease rent of Rs. 74,160/-, of which first installment of Rs. 37,080/- being lease rent for a period of six months, was paid vide cheque no. 314116 dated 01.07.1999 drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Allahabad. The said unregistered lease deed on plain paper is placed on record in Paper book filed by the assessee, at page 1-6. On perusal of the said lease deed, it transpired....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of soil, cultivation of soil, sowing of crops, planting, watering, upkeep and maintenance of land, putting fertilizers and manures, harvesting of crop, sale of crop, expenditure of human skill and labour to carry out agricultural operations etc. etc.. The assessee did not file any evidences by way of sale invoices for purchase of seeds, fertilizers, manures, insecticides etc. The assessee has not filed any evidences as to furnishing of details of labour employed such as name, address,ID, details of payments made/receipt etc.There are no evidences whatsoever as to sale of crop, and the persons who bought the crops. There are no evidences whatsoever by way of land revenue records and other village/government records to substantiates the details of crops sown, harvested, land revenue paid by the assessee, for the year under consideration. There are no village/government records which could evidences that the assessee was lessee in the said land during the year under consideration. The assessee has merely filed Profit and Loss account / ledger account to show that the assessee carried out agricultural operations, wherein all the alleged payments and receipts are shown to have taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as above, there is no definition of "agriculture" or "agricultural purpose" to be found in the Act and it, therefore, falls to be determined what is the connotation of these terms. An argument based on entries 14 and 19 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution may be disposed of at once. It was urged that entry No. 14 referred to agriculture including agricultural education and research, protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases while entry No. 19 referred to forests and there was, therefore, a clear line of demarcation between agriculture and forests with the result that forestry could not be comprised within agriculture. If forestry was thus not comprised within agriculture, any income from forestry could not be agricultural income and the income derived by the assessee from the sale of the forest trees could not be agricultural income at all, as it was not derived from land by agriculture within the meaning of the definition of agricultural income given in the Indian Income-tax Act. This argument, however, does not take account of the fact that the entries in the Lists of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution are heads of legislation wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y sense, and we are therefore sent for instruction to these books". Cozens-Hardy, M.R., also said in Camden ( Marquis)v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1914] 1 KB 641, 647: "It is for the Court to interpret the statute as best they can. In so doing the Court may no doubt assist themselves in the discharge of their duty by any literary help which they can find, including of course the consultation of standard authors and reference to wellknown and authoritative dictionaries". Turning, therefore, to the dictionary meaning of "agriculture" we find Webster's New International Dictionary describing it as "the art or science of cultivating the ground, including rearing and management of live-stock, husbandry, farming, etc. and also including in its broad sense farming, horticulture, forestry, butter and cheese-making etc". Murray's Oxford Dictionary describes it as "the science and art of cultivating the soil; including the allied pursuits of gathering in the crop and rearing live-stock; tillage, husbandry, farming (in the widest sense)". In Bouvier's Law Dictionary quoting the Standard Dictionary "agriculture" is defined as "the cultivation of soil ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gardens, nursery grounds or allotments, etc' In 57 and 58 Viet. c. 30, s. 22, the term 'agricultural property' was defined so as to include agricultural land, pasture and woodland, etc". These are the various meanings ascribed to the term "agriculture" in various dictionaries and it is significant to note that the term has been used both in the narrow sense of the cultivation of the field and the wider sense of comprising all activities in relation to the land including horticulture, forestry, breeding and rearing of live-stock, dairying, butter and cheese-making, husbandry etc. It was urged on behalf of the assessee that the Court should accept the wider significance of the term and include forestry operations also within its connotation even though they did not involve tilling of the land, sowing of seeds, planting, or similar work on the land. The argument was that tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting or similar work on the land were no doubt agricultural operations and if they were part of the forestry operations carried on by the assessee the subsequent operations would certainly be a continuation of the same and would therefore acq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and should be liberally construed, with the result that agriculture should be understood in the wider significance of the term and all agricultural income derived from agriculture or so understood should be included within the category. There was authority for the proposition that the expression "agricultural land" mentioned in Entry 21 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, should be interpreted in its wider significance as including lands which are used or are capable of being used for raising any valuable plants or trees or for any other purpose of husbandry. (See Sarojinidevi v. Shri Krishna Anjanneya Subrahmanyam and Others ILR [1945] Mad. 61 and Megh Raj v. Allah Rakhia [1942] FCR 53, 62). While recognizing the force of the above expressions of opinion we cannot press them into service in favour of the assessee for the simple reason that "agricultural income" has been defined in the Constitution itself in article 366(1) to mean agricultural income as denned for the purposes of enactments relating to Indian Income-tax and there is a definition of "agricultural income" to be found in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the land, sowing of the seeds, planting or similar work on the land were the basic operations, the scope of the crops produced was enlarged and all crops raised on the land, whether they be food crops or not, were included in the produce raised by agriculture. There was, however, another school of thought which extended the term "agriculture" and included within its connotation not only the products raised by the cultivation of the land but also allied activities which had relation to the land and operations which had the effect of fostering the growth, preservation and maintenance as also the regeneration of the products of the land, thus bringing within its compass not only the basic agricultural operations but also the further operations performed on the products of the land even though they were not necessarily accompanied by these preliminary basic operations. As against these cases which dealt with these preliminary basic operations and also the further operations either by themselves or in conjunction with the former, which of course necessarily involved the expenditure of human skill and labour in carrying out those operations, there were instances of products of land which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct to the policy of the Legislature in exempting agricultural leases from the operation of section 107, etc. of the Transfer of Property Act is to regard as agriculture, as distinguished from horticulture, not only all field cultivation by tillage but also all garden cultivation for the purpose chiefly of procuring vegetables or fruits as food for man or beast and other products fit for human consumption by way of luxury, if not as an article of diet". He then discussed the policy of exemptions setting out the observations of Cave, J., in Ellis & Co. v. Hilse [1889] LR 23 QBD 24 : "The very object of this exemption is the well-known one of favouring agriculture-an old object of English legislation in favour of a very important industry", and stated: "This observation of Mr. Justice Cave will apply with much greater force in this country where the agricultural industry is more important than in England and is one that is common to wet cultivation as to garden and dry cultivation, the object of all such cultivation being chiefly to procure food for men and cattle and other products of the soil which are usually consumed by the people as gentle stimulants or by way o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... did not think it necessary to determine whether income from forests or fisheries came under the definition of "agricultural income". The Court, however, pointed out that "a reference to Murray's and Webster's Dictionaries shows that the word 'agriculture', while sometimes used in the narrow sense of the art or science of cultivating the ground, is also used in a much wider sense so as to include even 'forestry,' according to Webster. In which sense it was used by the framers of the Income-tax Act would be a matter for determination and to this end it would not be out of place to consider the probable reason for the exemption of agricultural income from income-tax. No other reason is suggested than the equity of exempting from further burden income which had already paid toll to the State in the shape of land revenue". The question therefore whether the income from forests would be "agricultural income" within the meaning of section 4 of the Income-tax Act was thus left open, and the decision that income from forests was not liable to income-tax was reached under the terms of the sanad and of section 1 of Regulation XXV of 1802. Kaju Mal v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plication whatever to such a property as the grove in fact was. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Manavedan Tirumalpad [1930] ILR 54 Mad. 21was also a decision under the Indian Income-tax Act (XI of 1922) and the assessee there was assessed by the Income-tax Officer for the year 1928-29 on the amount received by the sale of timber trees cut and removed from the forests. The question was whether these amounts were liable as such to income-tax and the Court observed: ".........we are unable to distinguish between the income derived from the sale of paddy which is grown on land and the income derived from the sale of timber cut in a forest ; but the profits earned from the sale of paddy would be assessable to income-tax but for the special exemption given to that income in the Income-tax Act by reason of its being agricultural income. There is no such exemption in the case of income derived from the sale of timber". There is no further discussion to be found in the judgment which would throw light on the question whether such receipts by the assessee were agricultural income and as such exempt from income-tax. The later decision of the Madras Hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed, but should be defined rather by the circumstances in which the cultivation is carried on. In some cases it has been suggested that agriculture is confined to tillage. I think it can easily be shown that agriculture was carried on in this world before ploughs were invented. In the present day in many places cultivation is done with spades and not with ploughs. But the planting of timber or firewood trees, which are to stand on the land for a considerable number of years forming plantations or woods or forests, appears to me to be opposed to the idea of agriculture, the cultivation of an open space. It is true that for the purpose of growing trees in a plantation it may be necessary first to prepare the land. Later on it may be necessary to protect and water the young plants. Still later it may be necessary to thin out the plantation. But, when the land is covered with trees which had to stand on it for a number of years, sometimes as long as a century, during most of which period the land itself is untouched, to describe that as agriculture appears to me inappropriate. To my mind it is something very different from the cultivation of a field or of an open space. It may be notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtension of the idea which had germinated in the opinion expressed by Reilly, J., in Chandrasekhara Bharathi Swamigal v. Duraisami Naidu [1931] ILR 54 Mad. 900 and even plantation of trees in orchards which did not require to be replanted every year was included in the connotation of the term "agriculture". A still further extension of the term is to be found in the following observations of Viswanatha Sastri, J., in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Sundara Mudaliar [1950] 18 ITR 259 at page 273 : "It is a matter of ordinary experience, at least in this part of the country, that mango, cocoanut, palmyra, orange, jack, arecanut, tamarin and other trees are planted usually in an enclosed land, and that these; trees do not yield any fruit or crop in the yearly years of their growth. They remain on the land for a long number of years yielding fruit only after their maturity. There is no reason why the planting, rearing, watering, fencing and protection of such trees and the gathering of their fruits during the annual seasons should not be held to be 'agriculture.' There is some kind of cultivation or prodding of the soil at the inception when the planting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral idea of either tillage of the land or sowing of seeds or planting or similar work on the land which invests the operation with the characteristic of agricultural operations and whenever that central idea is fulfilled there is the user of land for agricultural purposes and the income derived therefrom becomes agricultural income. There were, on the other hand, decisions which interpreted the term "agriculture" in the wider sense as including all activities in relation to the land, even though they did not comprise these basic agricultural operations. King Emperor v. Alexander Allen [1902] ILR 25 Mad. 627, 629, 630 involved the interpretation of the expression "land used solely for agricultural purposes" in sub-section (3) of section 63 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (Mad. Act IV of 1884) as amended by the Madras District Municipalities Amendment Act (Mad. Act III of 1897) and the Court held that the lands on which potatoes, grains, vegetables, etc., were grown, as well as pasture land, were used "solely for agricultural purposes" within the meaning of the sub-section. The Court adopted the definition of agricultural land given in the Agricultural Rates Act (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the course of his judgment differed from the opinion of Bhashyam Ayyangar, J., in Murugesa Chetti v. Chinnathambi Goundan [1901] ILR 24 Mad. 421 that the word agriculture in its more general sense comprehends the raising of vegetables, fruits and other garden products as food for man or beast, if the learned Judge intended thereby to limit it to the raising of food products. For to so restrict the word would be to exclude flower, indigo, cotton, jute, flax, tobacco and other such cultivation. He also differed from the opinion expressed by Sadasiva Ayyar, J., in Seshayya v. Rajah of Pittapur [1916] 31 MLJ 284; 1916 MWN 396 and Raja of Venkatagiri v. Ayyappa Reddi [1915] ILR 38 Mad. 738 that agriculture meant the raising of annual or periodical grain crops through the operation of ploughing, sowing, etc., as such definition would exclude sugar cane, indigo, tea, flower, tobacco, and betel cultivation from agriculture. He then referred to the dictionary meaning of the term "agriculture" as given in the Oxford Dictionary and Bouvier's Law Dictionary set out above and observed: "In my opinion agriculture connotes the raising of useful or valuable products which derive n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Lean and Dickinson v. Ball [1925] 10 Tax Cas. 341 where Lord Cullen had said that he proceeded on the footing that the case, which was one dealing with poultry-farming, was one in which the poultry derived sustenance to a material extent from the produce of the ground. This method of approach was on a par with the one adopted by Lord Wright in Lord Glanely v. Wightman [1933] AC 618, 638 where it was observed : "If authority were needed, the provisions just quoted do at least show that profits of 'occupation' include gains from the animal produce as well as the agricultural, horticultural or arboricultural produce of the soil;..........................equally it is obvious that the rearing of animals, regarded as they must be as products of the soil-since it is from the soil that they draw their sustenance and on the soil that they live-is a source of profit from the occupation of land, whether these animals are for consumption as food (such as bullocks, pigs or chickens), or for the provision of food (such as cows, goats or fowls), or for recreation (such as hunters or race horses), or for use (such as draught or plough horses). All these animals ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....market, of tendu leaves produced by the pruning of the tendu shrubs was exempt as agricultural income under section 2(1) and section 4(3)(viii) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The learned Chief Justice observed: "Cutting back or pruning the wild tendu clearly contributes to the growth of the leaves in that shrub and I am prepared to hold that the pruning of the shrub is a cultivation of the shrub and as the shrub grows in the soil and as a part of it, is a cultivation of the soil in a legal and technical sense". The word "cultivation" was here understood by the learned Chief Justice not only in the sense of cultivation of the soil but in the sense of cultivation of the tendu shrubs which grew on the soil and were therefore a part of it. The operations which were performed on the shrubs were certainly not operations performed on the soil itself and the opinion expressed by the learned Chief Justice has certainly given an extended meaning to the term "cultivation" as used with reference to the soil. It is significant, however, to observe that cultivation of the soil was considered an essential ingredient which rendered the income derived from the tendu leaves agricult....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that no agricultural operations were at all involved and there is no agricultural income. In such cases, it would be the absence of any such operations rather than the performance thereof which would be the prime cause of growth of such products. The cases bearing on this aspect of the question may be noted. Kaju Mal v. Salig Ram [1919] PR No. 19. p. 237 is the earliest case where a stretch of natural forest came in for consideration. It was a forest land and it was held to be agricultural land or land used for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture, and, therefore, exempt from pre-emption under section 4 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1905. There was no discussion of any legal principles in that decision but when we come to the next case of Province of Bihar v. Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath Sahi Deo [1941] 9 ITR 313, 328 which was a case under the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act (Bihar Act VII of 1938), we find the ratio of these decisions laid down in clear terms. The assessees there derived their income from "Bankar" and "Phalkar" "Bankar" was income derived from the sale of wood from virgin jungle or jungles not actually cultivated; and "P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....subject must be given the benefit. But we do not feel any doubt that the expression 'land used for agricultural purposes' in the Income-tax Act does not extend to forests of spontaneous growth, where nothing is done to prepare the soil for trees to be planted therein, and where the growth of the trees is not fostered by tillage. We should not be justified in giving the taxpayer the benefit of the dictionary definition when it is not disputed that the meaning of the term 'agricultural' cannot be extended for the purpose of the Income-tax Act to all the secondary implications therein suggested. We therefore construe the term in its primary sense. We hold accordingly that income from the sale of forest trees of, spontaneous growth growing on land which is assessed to land revenue is not agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act". Yuvarajah of Pithapuram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras [1946] 14 ITR 92, 99, was also a case where the assessee derived income from forests of spontaneous growth by the sale of wood, bark, leaves, other usufruct of trees, minor forest produce and licence fees and from trees that had grown w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral purposes" but such income had also to be derived by the process of "agriculture". The Court observed that being trees of spontaneous growth, to the production of which the assessee had made no contribution by way of cultivation, no question could arise either of the land on which they grew being "used for agricultural purposes" or of the trees themselves and the income they produced being the result of "agriculture". The Court accordingly held that the income from the sale of forest trees of spontaneous growth, growing on land naturally, and without the intervention of human agency, was not agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act even if such land was subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Crown as such and such income was not exempt from income-tax under section 4(3)(viii) of the Act. A decision of the Nagapur High Court in Beohar Singh Raghubir Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., C.P. and Berar [1948] 16 ITR 433 (delivered on September 4, 1946, but reported in 1948), may be noted here. There also the income in question was derived by the assessee from the sale of forest produce such as timber, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Ajmer and Ajmer Merwara [1948] 16 ITR 330. It will be recalled that the Oudh Chief Court had in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P. & C.P. [1945] 13 ITR 98, decided that income from the sale of forest trees growing on land naturally and without the intervention of human agency even if the land was assessed to land revenue was not agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The appellant took an appeal to the Privy Council against this decision and the main question for consideration before their Lordships was whether the land was used for agricultural purposes and the income derived therefrom was agricultural income. Their Lordships of the Privy Council observed that the income in question "was derived from the sale of trees described as forest trees growing on land naturally and the case has throughout proceeded upon the footing that there was nothing to show that the assessee was carrying on any regular operations in forestry and that the jungle from which trees had been cut and sold was a spontaneous growth. Upon these fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the result. Their Lordships also did not express any opinion on the question whether land can be said to be used for agricultural purposes within the section if it has been planted with trees and cultivated in the regular course of arboriculture. They were, however, definite in their opinion that unless there is some measure of cultivation of the land, some expenditure of skill and labour upon it, the land cannot be said to be used for agricultural purposes within the meaning of the Act. Agricultural operations are thus defined by them to be operations where there was some measure of cultivation of the land, some expenditure of skill and labour upon it. If these conditions were satisfied in regard to any particular land, then such land can be said to be used for agricultural purposes and the income derived therefrom constitute agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Act. The term "agriculture" for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act was thus in effect defined by their Lordships to mean some measure of cultivation of the land and some expenditure of skill and labour upon it and unless the operations, whether they be agricultural operations or forestry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tle and men off from the lands so that they may not damage the young growing shoots. In order to promote the growth of shoots, the ground was also kept free from undergrowth jungle. This was not cleared at the assessee's expense but the villagers were allowed to clear the grounds of the undergrowth and take the same away free of cost. The existing sal trees in the forests and the sal trees which had been sold off in 1350 B.S. had been grown in the same manner as described above. From the above facts it was clear that human care and skill had been utilised for promoting the growth of the sal trees from which the income was derived in 1350 B.S. The Court discussed the dictionary meaning of the term "agriculture" and following the decision of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Ajmer & Ajmer-Merwara [1948] 16 ITR 330 came to the conclusion that income from a virgin forest or forests of spontaneous growth was not agricultural income. The view that the tilling of the soil was the sine qua non for bringing a pursuit within the term agriculture was also held to have been exploded and it was observed (at page 440) : "Whether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d labour upon the land on which the forest grows". The Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that in the special circumstances as disclosed in the case, there were regular operations in forestry and the income derived from forests in question was agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944. Jyotirindra Narayan Sinha Choudhury v. State of Assam [1951] 19 ITR 379 arose under the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939, and the question for the consideration of the Court was whether the amounts realised by the assessee from the sale of sal trees growing in the forest was agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Act. There was no evidence to show that these sal trees were of spontaneous growth. Even though the possibility of the forests originally having been of spontaneous growth was recognised, it was an admitted fact that forest trees were protected and fostered in growth by the application of human labour and skill. In these forests, operations in forestry, such as clearing jungles, creepers and climbers, thinning by removal of less healthy trees from thickly grown areas, removal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gricultural if there is some expenditure of skill and labour upon it. Regular operations in forestry necessarily involve expenditure of skill and labour. Where, therefore, such operations take place, the income from the sale of trees in the forest would be within the ambit of agricultural income as defined in the Assam Act". In Pratap Singh Balbeer Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., C.P. & Berar [1952] 22 ITR 1, however, the High Court of Allahabad struck a different note. The assessee there derived the income from the sale of forest trees growing on land naturally and spontaneously without the intervention of any human agency but carried on forestry operations working the forest for at least some time on scientific lines in accordance with a scheme of making profits. There was a regular working plan and the assessee was deriving regular income from the forest and spending money to increase the profit. The Court held that "agriculture" and "agricultural purposes" with reference to land clearly implied that some operations must be carried on the land itself ; human skill and labour should be used for the purpose of ploughing the land, manuring it, planting the trees....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x determined in Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, West Bengal v. Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb [1949] 17 ITR 426 covered the case and it was submitted that the facts here were if at all far stronger in favour of the assessee. The decision of the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P., Ajmer and Ajmer-Merwara [1948] 16 ITR 330, was considered and the Court observed at page 87 : "I do not think that when the Privy Council said that there must be 'some measure of cultivation on the land, some expenditure of skill and labour upon it', their Lordships intended to say that the expenditure of skill and labour must always be in the form of cultivation. The word 'or' introduced by the Allahabad High Court between the two phrases does not occur in the original, but I think it is implied. The idea, it seems to me, is that if the land has been left to the forces of nature to grow what products such forces could, there is no agriculture and that there can be agriculture only if the labour and skill of man has operated on the land to cause or aid the growth of certain products. All that is necessary is that the land shoul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf was cultivated and that there was some expenditure of skill and labour upon it". The Court held that even conceding that the two conditions laid down by the Privy Council in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan's case (supra) were to be read as alternative conditions, there was no material on which to hold that that there was any expenditure of skill and labour upon the land and therefore the income from the sale of forest trees was not agricultural income. In Jyotikana Choudhurani v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Assam [1954] 26 ITR 424, which is also under appeal before us in Civil Appeals Nos. 57 to 62, a Special Bench of the Assam High Court considered whether income derived by the assessees from the sale of trees of spontaneous growth where there was no planting or sowing or employment of any human agency for the purpose of tilling the land but operations in forestry were carried on by the assessee involving considerable expenditure of human skill and labour was agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The majority of the Court consisting of Sarjoo Prasad, C.J., and Ram Labhaya, J., (Deka, J., dissenting) held that even though ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operations in forestry. This statement has an important bearing on the interpretation of the test. Such operations in forestry are carried on in forests. They involve the use of human labour and skill on the soil. They aim at stimulating growth and could easily satisfy the requirements of the test evolved by their Lordships. Due importance therefore has to be given to the absence of operations in forestry in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan's case (supra), when interpreting the test laid down therein". Vikram Deo Varma v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa [1956] 29 ITR 76, is the last case of this series. The assessee derived income from extensive forest areas in ihe impartible estate of which he was proprietor. Over several decades the whole of the forest area had been subjected by hill tribes to a process of "podu" cultivation-setting fire to the trees and cultivating the forest lands and raising crops thereon-so that it was impossible to say that there was any virgin forest left. Through a huge forest establishment considerable amount of human labour and skill was spent (i) in fostering the growth of trees and preserving them from destruction by men and cattle; (ii) i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Calcutta High Court that income derived from the sale of sal trees growing spontaneously in forests and not planted by man was 'agricultural' income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act. There was no digging or ploughing of the land nor planting of trees but there were 'operations in forestry' such as guarding the forest trees to keep away cattle and allowing leaves and undergrowth to be removed by people of the locality. There was no breaking up of the soil, no sowing or planting or watering or fencing. Whether the decision is correct or not can only be authoritatively declared by the Supreme Court of India. It seems to rest on an undue extension of the principle laid down by the Judicial Committee in Raja Mustafa Ali Khan's case (supra), and goes much further than our decision in the present case". It appears from the above survey that there has been a divergence of opinion amongst the various Courts not only in regard to the connotation of the terms "agriculture" and "agricultural purposes" but also in regard to the nature of forestry operations performed in the forest which can be styled agricultural o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to exempt the income derived from that land from liability for payment of income-tax altogether and that theory was based on the assumption that an assessee who was subject to payment of land revenue should not further be subjected to the payment of income-tax, because if he was so subjected he would be liable to pay double taxation. It is interesting to note at this stage the genesis of the provision exempting agricultural income derived from the lands assessed to land revenue as understood by the Courts. Viswanatha Sastri, J., in this context observed in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Sundara Mudaliar [1950] 18 ITR 259 at page 270 : "I shall briefly advert to the genesis of the provision exempting agricultural income derived from lands assessed to land revenue, as I consider that the subject-matter with which the legislature was dealing, and the facts existing at the time with respect to which the legislation was made, are legitimate topics for consideration in ascertaining the object and scope of the exemption from income-tax conferred on agricultural income. This exemption, it would be noticed, has been a persistent feature of the income-tax legislat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... land revenue or fixed peishkush under Regulation XXV of 1802 was not considered by Rankin, J., as a deterrent against the levy of income-tax in appropriate cases, even on certain classes of income derived from the permanently settled estates, if that was the clear intention of the legislature. The learned Judge observed in Emperor v. Probhat Chandra Barua [1924] ILR 51 Cal. 504: "Some reference was made at the bar to the practice of the Revenue Authorities since 1886 as regards fisheries in permanently settled estates, but there is no agreement as to what that practice-if there be a practice-has been. Assuming that it would have been open to us to place some degree of reliance upon an interpretation settled by practice as contemporanea expositio we are in fact without any such assistance". "Some reference was also made to what has been called a 'presumption against double taxation'. In Manindra Chandra Nandi v. Secretary of State [1907] ILR 34 Cal. 257, royalties from a coal mine were held liable both to cess under the Cess Act, 1880, and to income-tax under the Act of 1886, but it was said that, 'it may be conceded that Courts always look with disfav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be the basic operations and would require the expenditure of human skill and labour upon the land itself. There are however other operations which have got to be resorted to by the agriculturist and which are absolutely necessary for the purpose of effectively raising the produce from the land. They are operations to be performed after the produce sprouts from the land, e.g, weeding, digging the soil around the growth, removal of undesirable undergrowths and all operations which foster the growth and preserve the same not only from insects and pests but also from depredation from outside, tending, pruning, cutting, harvesting, and rendering the produce fit for the market. The latter would all be agricultural operations when taken in conjunction with the basic operations above described, and it would be futile to urge that they are not agricultural operations at all. But even though these subsequent operations may be assimilated to agricultural operations, when they are in conjunction with these basic operations could it be said that even though they are divorced from these basic operations they would nevertheless enjoy the characteristic of agricultural operations ? Can one elimin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the nature of the products raised on the land. These products may be grain or vegetables or fruits which are necessary for the sustenance of human beings including plantations and groves, or grass or pasture for consumption of beasts or articles of luxury such as betel, coffee, tea, spices, tobacco etc., or commercial crops like cotton, flax, jute, hemp, indigo etc. All these are products raised from the land and the term "agriculture" cannot be confined merely to the production of grain and food products for human beings and beasts as was sought to be done by Bhashyam Ayyangar, J., in Murugesa Chetti v. Chinnathambi Gounden & Others [1901] ILR 24 Mad. 421, 423, or Sadasiva Ayyar, J., in Raja of Venkatagiri v. Ayyappa Reddi [1915] ILR 38 Mad. 738, but must be understood as comprising all the products of the land which have some utility either for consumption or for trade and commerce and would also include forest products such as timber, sal and piyasal trees, casuarina plantations, tendu leaves, horra nuts etc. The question still remains whether there is any warrant for the further extension of the term "agriculture" to all activities in relation to the land or having....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al cultivator of the land who pays such rent-in-kind to him. If produce raised or received by the cultivator or receiver of rent-in-kind is thus made the subject-matter of clauses (ii) and (iii) in section 2(1)( b) of the Act, the term "agriculture" used in clause (i) of section 2(1)(b) must also be similarly restricted to the performance of the basic operations on the land and there its no scope for reading the term "agriculture" in the still wider sense indicated above. If the term "agriculture" is thus understood as comprising within its scope the basic as well as subsequent operations in the process of agriculture and the raising on the land of products which have some utility either for consumption or for trade and commerce, it will be seen that the term "agriculture" receives a wider interpretation both in regard to its operations as well as the results of the same. Nevertheless there is present all throughout the basic idea that there must be at the bottom of it cultivation of land in the sense of tilling of the land, sowing of the seeds, planting, and similar work done on the land itself. This basic conception is the essential sine qua non of any operation performe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the finding that the forest in question was of spontaneous growth. If there were no other facts found, that would entail the conclusion that the income is not agricultural income. But then, it has also been found by the Tribunal that the forest is more than 150 years old, though portions of the forest have from time to time been denuded, that is to say, trees have completely fallen and the proprietors have planted fresh trees in those areas, and they have performed operations for the purpose of nursing the trees planted by them. It cannot be denied that so far as those trees are concerned, the income derived therefrom would be agricultural income. In view of the fact that the forest is more than 150 years old, the areas which had thus become denuded and replanted cannot be considered to be negligible. The position therefore is that the whole of the income derived from the forest cannot be treated as non-agricultural income. If the enquiry had been directed on proper lines, it would have been possible for the Income-tax authorities to ascertain how much of the income is attributable to forest of spontaneous growth and how much to trees planted by the proprietors. But no such e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ayment claimed to have been made in July, 1999 towards six monthly lease rent, and even for that evidence of clearance of said cheque from bank account of the assessee is not enclosed. Even, land revenue records as well crop sowing/harvesting records maintained at village level by government authorities, specifying that the assessee is tenant of the said land or the crop sown by him/harvested by him, are not produced. The assessee is claiming exemption of alleged agricultural income under the provisions of Section 2(1A) read with Section 10(1) of the 1961 Act, and the onus is entirely on the assessee to prove that the assessee earned agricultural income as defined u/s 2(1A) of the 1961 Act before any exemption can be granted u/s 10(1) of the 1961 Act. It is well settled that exemption provisions are to be strictly construed and the onus is strictly on the assessee to prove that his case falls within four corners of the exemption provision. Reference is drawn to the judgment and order of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court n the case of Commissioner of Customs(Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company, reported in (2018) 95 taxmann.com 327(SC). The assessee having miserab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the earlier years while the assessee was having the facility of holding multiple bank accounts, and further the assessee has claimed to have availed loan from PSB, on which the assessee is paying interest on loans availed from PSB, and on the other hand the rationale of holding such a huge cash of Rs. 16 lacs allegedly earned in earlier years could not be explained by the assessee. Thus, we reject this contention of the assessee. So far as remaining cash deposit of Rs. 20 lacs in PNB, an altogether fresh claim is raised for the first time before tribunal that the said amount is deposited by Partners Mrs. Shashi Singh and Smt. Anita Kesarwani. No evidence to substantiate the same is filed that in-fact the said amount were deposited by Mrs. Shashi Singh and/or Mrs. Smt. Anita Kesarwani. The assessee has claimed that he undertook construction of flats on the plot of land contributed by the said Mrs. Shashi Singh and Mrs. Anita Kesarwani, who are the owners of this plot of land. The assessee has claimed himself to be the Partner in this venture along with Mrs. Shashi Singh and Mrs. Anita Kesarwani. The assessee has filed agreement(Ikrarnama) dated 15.11.2005, which is placed in PB file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Singh and Mrs. Anita Kesarwani(Rs. 20 lacs). The assessee fails on this issue. We order accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no. 3/Alld/2022 for ay: 2006-07, stands dismissed. We order accordingly. ITA NO. 4/Alld/2022-Assessment Year 2007-08 9. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 4/Alld./2022 for assessment year 2007-08, in memo of appeal filed with tribunal, reads as under:- "1. That on the facts and circumstances produced on record the authority below was not justified in not accepting agriculture Income Rs. 22,00,000/- and Aroma oil sale Rs. 1,83,000/- Total Rs. 23,83,000/-. 2. That all the relevant proof has been submitted for cash deposit of Rs. 60,83,000/- in standard chartered bank but the authority below has added extra deposit Rs. 27,27,388/- without any basis. 3. That the order passed by the authority below is unjust." 10. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee was reopened by Revenue by invoking provision of Section 147/148 of the Act. The AO issued notice dated 08.03.2013 u/s 148 of the 1961 Act, requiring assessee to file return of income. The assessee in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and also agricultural operations carried on by the assessee, by submitting details/evidence of agricultural account, sale bills of agricultural produce, purchase bills of seeds and fertilizers, evidence of harvest of agricultural produce, sowing of agricultural crops, evidences for work done to improve agricultural operations, and other evidences to prove that agricultural operations were in-fact carried on by the assessee, but the assessee only produced Profit and Loss Account of agricultural activities and claim was made by assessee before AO that income from agriculture was deposited in the bank account, but the assessee could not produce any evidence/documents before the AO to substantiate/prove that agricultural operations were in-fact carried on by the assessee. So far as agricultural land is concerned, the assessee claimed that the land belonged to 'Raja Jagannath Bakhsh Singh Trust' and lease agreement was executed on plain paper and same was not registered. On being asked by AO, the assessee submitted that the land owner refused to get the said land agreement registered, and this agreement was prepared on the plain paper. The AO rejected the contentions of the assessee an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of appellant to prove that any procedures were adopted to produce and maintain these agricultural produces over a time from 1999 to the year in question. There is no evidence to prove that any basic and subsequent operations were duly performed resulting onto this agricultural income like expenditure on human labour, seeds, manure, pesticide, etc.. AO's contention is that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence whatsoever regarding expenses on plantations and there maintenance as stated above. No details of buyers or evidence of sale of these of flowers, grass, grains and vegetables were submitted before AO. The Supreme Court in CIT v Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC) has held that the land is said to be used for agricultural purposes where the following two types of operations are carried out on such land: The term 'agriculture in S. 2(1)(b)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act connotes the entire and integrated activity of an agriculturist performed on the land in order to raise its produce and consists of such basic and essential operations, requiring human skill and labour on the land itself, as the tilling of the soil, sowin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of need of customers who purchased grass and brought their own at a very low cost and only job work was being done on labour basis and the applicant had no concern with oil sale of its marketing. The applicant's sale was limited only to agricultural produces. If we go by this theory then it shows that appellant was doing complete business of extraction and sale of oil but trying to break the operations and claim it as exempt u/s 2 of IT Act. But applicant does not have any evidence to prove this activity also. All the submissions of appellant are not backed by any iota of documentary evidence hence they cannot be relied upon. An income to be "agricultural income" should be derived from land and the land should be used for agricultural purposes. In other words, there should be a nexus between income, land and agriculture operations, by which is meant something done to the land by human or mechanical agency to produce out of the land any crop, tree, plantation or other produce or product. The immediate source of the income must be land or the description or character mentioned in the definition [CIT v Imam Saheb (K.S.) (1969) 71 ITR 742 (Mad)]. In the case of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not give rise to any question of law on the findings recorded by it. In the instant case it is well established that appellant has failed to discharge the Initial onus of proving that the income earned was in fact agricultural income. Appellant also failed to prove that any agricultural operations were in fact ever done on the land premises leased by him and finally failed to substantiate that the sale of these flowers, grass, vegetables and grains actually happened. So it is seen that appellant fails on all the main ingredients that are required to prove the nature and source of this income as agricultural income, in order to claim the statutory exemption. Facts in this case are same as for AY 2006- 07 where on similar grounds the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on this ground. With these remarks addition made by the AO is upheld. This ground is dismissed." 11c. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 37,00,000/- with direction to co-relate the said deposits in the bank account with the receipts with respect to sale of House No. 846, University Road, Allahabad, made by the HUF of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO has accepted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this amount u/s 69A OF IT Act. The ground is dismissed." 12a. Aggrieved by the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal with tribunal. The assessee has filed written submissions before tribunal, which are reproduced as under: The learned counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that there are three additions which were made by the AO, the first addition was with respect to deposits in the Standard Chartered Bank on account of agricultural income of Rs. 23.83 lacs (including sale of aroma oil of Rs. 1.83 lacs on labour work)which claim of the assessee of having earned income from agriculture was not accepted by the AO. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the same explanations which were given while arguing for the immediately preceding year before the Bench, will apply to this year also so far as agricultural income is concerned. Regarding second addition of Rs. 37 lacs with respect to the deposits in the Standard Chartered Bank as was made by the AO, it was submitted that ld. CIT(A) deleted the said additions by directing the AO to verify the claim of the assessee that said Rs. 37 lacs were received from the sale of H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is shown by the assessee to the tune of Rs.26,00,000/-. Similarly, different amount of alleged expenses were claimed before authorities below, and also before tribunal. It was submitted that the assessee is changing his stand, before different authorities. The ld. Sr. DR prayed that additions as were confirmed by ld. CIT(A) by rejecting the claim of the assessee of undertaking alleged agricultural activities be confirmed. The ld. Sr. DR also submitted that there were credits in the Standard Chartered Bank to the tune of Rs. 27,27,388/- for which no explanation were given by the assessee and the same were rightly confirmed by ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that there are total credits of Rs. 88,00,603/- ( exclusive of credit of interest income ) in Standard Chartered Bank as against credits of Rs. 88,10,338/- as were considered by the authorities below. The relevant extract of written submissions filed by ld. Sr. DR are as under: Thus, it was submitted that accordingly, the AO can work out the additions to bring correct income to tax. So far as addition of Rs. 37 lacs as was made by the AO, it was submitted that ld. CIT(A) deleted the same with directions to AO to make necessary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 143(3), and the decision of ld. CIT(A) has attained finality as it could not be shown that an appeal is filed by either of the party against the decision of ld. CIT(A). 13c. So far as remaining addition of Rs. 27,27,338/- made by the AO and sustained by ld. CIT(A), the assessee has claimed that the same was deposited by Mrs. Shashi Singh and Mrs. Anita Kesarwni with whom the assessee has claimed to be partner for construction of flats on the plot of land owned by them. We have already discussed this issue in ay: 2006-07 and decided the issue against the assessee in the absence of evidence. Same factual matrix prevails in this year as no evidence of having received said sums of money from Mrs. Shashi Singh and Mrs. Anita Kesarwani are produced. Thus, our decision for ay: 2006-07 shall apply mutatis mutandis to ay: 2007-08, and the issue is decided against the assessee. The ld. Sr. DR has highlighted that total receipts in Standard Chartered Bank were to the tune of Rs. 88,00,603/- ( exclusive of credit of interest income of Rs. 2500+ Rs.2815 +Rs. 4106 credited on 30.06.2006, 31.12.2006 and on 31.03.2007) as against total receipts taken by AO of Rs. 88,10,338/-. First of all, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come filed with Revenue. The assessee also declared agriculture income of Rs. 34,00,000/- in the return of income filed with Revenue, which was claimed as an exempt income. The AO issued statutory notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The assessee participated in re-assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has deposited Rs. 77,86,514/- in his bank account no. 62510015697 maintained with Standard Chartered Bank. The assessee was asked by AO to explain the said deposits in his bank account. The assessee submitted details of deposits in the aforesaid bank account as under: The AO observed that the assessee has claimed to have deposited an amount of Rs. 49,73,355/- in his bank account, out of which the assessee claimed to have deposited Rs. 37,43,000/- as agricultural income which was claimed as an exempt income. The assessee was asked by AO to substantiate the claim of agricultural income earned by him, and also to substantiate the agricultural operations carried on by the assessee, by submitting details/evidence of agricultural account, sale bills of agricultural produce, purchase bills of seeds and fertilizers, evidence of harvest of agricultural pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k account, during the year under consideration, and no explanation is provided so far as balance amount of cash deposited of Rs. 1,01,90,683/- in assessee's bank account, which led AO to make additions to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,01,90,683/- under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, vide reassessment order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 17. The assessee being aggrieved by reassessment order filed first appeal with Ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) with respect to addition of Rs. 37,43,000/-, as under: "Appellant's submission: During the appellate proceedings, the A.R. of the appellant has submitted as under - "1. Agriculture Income Rs.37,43,000/-: (1) The Appellant had submitted the P & L A/C and agriculture income details viz. Lease agreement, which has not been considered." The applicant started agriculture work in 1999 on lease land at Village Sirsa, Rae Bareli and also took loan from Punjab & Sindh Bank and started producing aroma grasses from flowers and grass for its customers and also grown grains and vegetable. Copy of lease of agric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... possession of appellant to prove that any procedures were adopted to produce and maintain these agricultural produces over a time from 1999 to the year in question. There is no evidence to prove that any basic and subsequent operations were duly performed resulting onto this agricultural income like expenditure on human labour, seeds, manure, pesticide, etc.. AO's contention is that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence whatsoever regarding expenses on plantations and there maintenance as stated above. No details of buyers or evidence of sale of these of flowers, grass, grains and vegetables were submitted before AO. The Supreme Court in CIT v Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC) has held that the land is said to be used for agricultural purposes where the following two types of operations are carried out on such land: The term 'agriculture' in S. 2(1)(b)(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act connotes the entire and integrated activity of an agriculturist performed on the land in order to raise its produce and consists of such basic and essential operations, requiring human skill and labour on the land itself, as the tilling of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e oil in case of need of customers who purchased grass and brought their own at a very low cost and only job work was being done on labour basis and the applicant had no concern with oil sale of its marketing. The applicant's sale was limited only to agricultural produces. If we go by this theory then it shows that appellant was doing complete business of extraction and sale of oil but trying to break the operations and claim it as exempt u/s 2 of IT Act. But applicant does not have any evidence to prove this activity also. All the submissions of appellant are not backed by any lota of documentary evidence hence they cannot be relied upon. An income to be "agricultural income" should be derived from land and the land should be used for agricultural purposes. In other words, there should be a nexus between income, land and agriculture operations, by which is meant something done to the land by human or mechanical agency to produce out of the land any crop, tree, plantation or other produce or product. The Immediate source of the income must be land or the description or character mentioned in the definition [CIT v Imam Saheb (K.S.) (1969) 71 ITR 742 (Mad)]. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l does not give rise to any question of law on the findings recorded by it. In the instant case it is well established that appellant has failed to discharge the initial onus of proving that the income earned was in fact agricultural income. Appellant also failed to prove that any agricultural operations were in fact ever done on the land premises leased by him and finally failed to substantiate that the sale of these flowers, grass, vegetables and grains actually happened. So it is seen that appellant fails on all the main ingredients that are required to prove the nature and source of this income as agricultural income, in order to claim the statutory exemption. Facts in this case are same as for AY 2006- 078 AY 2007- 08 where on similar grounds the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on this ground. With these remarks addition made by the AO is upheld. This ground is dismissed." 17c. With respect to addition of Rs. 28,13,159/- made by the AO with respect to cash deposits in Standard Chartered Bank, the assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A), as under: "2 Cash Deposit Rs. 28,13,159/- (i) The Appellant has deposited Rs. 49,73,355/- in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade u/s 68 of IT Act on the unexplained deposits in the bank account as they are not books of accounts of the appellant but can be added u/s 69A of IT Act as unexplained money. Therefore I am left with no alternative but to confirm the addition made by AO. AO is directed to tax this amount u/s 69A of IT Act. This ground is dismissed." 18a. Aggrieved by the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed second appeal before tribunal and Ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed written submissions, as under: The Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there is an addition to the tune of Rs. 37,43,000/- as the claim of the assessee for earning of an agriculture income was not accepted by authorities below. It was further submitted that an addition of Rs. 28,13,159/- was made on account of unexplained cash deposits, and a further addition of Rs. 1,01,90,683/- was made by the AO on account of allegation of deposit in bank accounts being unexplained deposits. It was submitted that additions were made based on AIR information that Rs. 1,29,09,797/- and Rs. 50,67,400/- aggregating to Rs. 1,79,77,197/- were deposited in cash in bank accounts of the assessee, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts are as under: Regarding claim of agricultural income of Rs. 37,43,000/- allegedly earned by the assessee, the ld. Sr. DR relied upon his pleadings for the earlier years and it was submitted that the AO has rightly brought to tax the said income by rejecting the claim of the assessee that he earned said income from agriculture. It was also submitted that the assessee is changing its stand regarding quantum of alleged agricultural income earned before different authorities. Our attention was drawn to written submissions filed by ld. Sr. DR and it was submitted that before AO, the assessee submitted that alleged gross agricultural income allegedly earned was Rs. 35,93,570/-, while before tribunal now it is claimed that alleged gross agricultural income earned was Rs. 45,00,000/-. It was submitted that same is the case with various expenses allegedly stated to be incurred for carrying out alleged agricultural operations, wherein the assessee is shifting his stand as to quantum of these expenses. It was submitted that there are absolutely no evidence to substantiate that the assessee in-fact carried out any agricultural operations. Regarding the addition of Rs. 28,13,159/- made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,63,755/- ( exclusive of interest income of Rs. 9175 + Rs. 5513/- + Rs. 3647/- + Rs. 4425/- aggregating to Rs.22,760/-, credited on 30.06.2007, 30.09.2007, 31.12.2007 and 31.03.2008), out of which cash deposits were to the tune of Rs.50,67,400/- ( correct figure which matches with supplementary AIR return) and cheque deposits were to the tune of Rs. 26,96,353/-. The assessee has only declared interest income of Rs. 3,250/- in the return of income filed with Revenue. The interest income from Standard Chartered Bank account is Rs. 22,760/-, thus there is short declaration of interest income. The assessee has other bank accounts also. The AO is directed to bring to tax, correct interest income earned by the assessee from all his bank accounts, to income-tax. Proceeding further, the assessee has claimed that there were sale of flats constructed by him on the plot of land owned by Mrs. Shashi Singh and Mrs. Anita Kesarwani. The said construction was claimed to be undertaken in partnership with Mrs. Shashi Singh and Mrs. Anita Kesarwani. The flats are claimed to be sold during the year. It is claimed that expenses were also incurred by the assessee for construction of these flats and los....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts on the plot of land owned by them, to unravel truth with an objective to bring to tax correct income chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee, but the primary onus is on the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credits in his bank accounts. With these remarks and directions, we are restoring the matter to the file of the AO. We order accordingly. 20. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 5/Alld/2022 for ay: 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly. ITA NO. 6/ALLD/2022-Assessment Year 2009-10 21.The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in ITA No. 6/Alld./2022 for assessment year 2009-10, in memo of appeal filed with tribunal, reads as under:- "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the authority below is not justified to accept agriculture Income of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 2. That the deposit of Rs. 1,67,277/- was also from agriculture Income Total deposit in Bank was only 6,67,277/-. 3. That the order passed by the authority below is unjust." 22. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee's assessment was reopened by Revenue by invoking provisions of Section 147 and 148 of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of Section 68 of the 1961 Act. The AO passed reassessment order dated 24.03.2014 u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act, computing taxable income of Rs. 6,71,030/- as against returned income of Rs. 3,750/-. 23. Being aggrieved by reassessment framed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal before the CIT(A), and submitted before ld. CIT(A) as under: "Appellant's submission During the appellate proceedings, the A.R. of the appellant has submitted as under- "1. Addition of Rs.5,00,000/- :Agriculture Income. (a) The appellant has filed the detail of agriculture Profit & Loss a/c. Copy of lease deed of agriculture land, which has not been considered." The applicant started agriculture work in 1999 on lease land at Village Sirsa, Rae Bareli and also took loan from Punjab & Sindh Bank and started producing aroma grasses from flowers and grass for its customers and also grown grains and vegetable. Copy of lease of agricultural land is enclosed, which is for 10 years but due to ill health, the applicant has closed the work of Aroma Grasses in 2008. The applicant has never done any business of Aroma oil because it needs m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anure, pesticide, etc.. AO's contention is that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence whatsoever regarding expenses on plantations and there maintenance as stated above. No details of buyers or evidence of sale of these of flowers, grass, grains and vegetables were submitted before AO. The Supreme Court in CIT v Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) 32 ITR 466 (SC) has held that the land is said to be used for agricultural purposes where the following two types of operations are carried out on such land:- The term 'agriculture' in S. 2(1)(b)(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act connotes the entire and integrated activity of an agriculturist performed on the land in order to raise its produce and consists of such basic and essential operations, requiring human skill and labour on the land itself, as the tilling of the soil, sowing of the seeds, planting and similaroperations on the land and such other subsequent operations, performed after the produce sprouts from the land, as weeding, digging of the soil around the growth, removal of undesirable under-growths, tending, pruning, cutting, harvesting and marketing. But these subsequent operations,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng complete business of extraction and sale of oil but trying to break the operations and claim it as exempt u/s 2 of IT Act. But applicant does not have any evidence to prove this activity also. All the submissions of appellant are not backed by any iota of documentary evidence hence they cannot be relied upon. An income to be "agricultural income" should be derived from land and the land could be used for agricultural purposes. In other words, there should be a nexus between income, land and agriculture operations, by which is meant something done to the land by human or mechanical agency to produce out of the land any crop, tree, plantation or other produce or product. The immediate source of the income must be land or the description or character mentioned in the definition [CIT v Imam Saheb (K.S.) (1969) 71 ITR 742 (Mad)]. In the case of Mustafa Ali Khan v. CIT [1948 16 ITR 330 (PC) in which it was held that that income from sale of forest trees, fruits and flowers growing on land naturally and spontaneously without the intervention of human agency is considered as Non Agricultural Income. Appellant has submitted that the plantation took place from 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd premises leased by him and finally failed to substantiate that the sale of these flowers, grass, vegetables and grains actually happened. So it is seen that appellant fails on all the main ingredients that are required to prove the nature and source of this income as agricultural income, in order to claim the statutory exemption. Facts in this case are same as for AY 2006-07, AY 2007-08) &AY 2008-09 where on similar grounds the appeal of the appellant is dismissed on this ground. With these remarks addition made by the AO is upheld. This ground is dismissed. 23c.With regard to the addition of Rs. 1,67,277/- as was made by the AO on account of unexplained cash deposits in Standard Chartered Bank account, the assessee submitted before ld. CIT(A) as under: "Appellant's submission: During the appellate proceedings, the A.R. of the appellant has submitted as under: "2. Addition cash deposit Rs. 1,67,277/- (i)The appellant has deposited Rs. 1,67,277/- out of agriculture income. (ii) This is the last year of income from agriculture and thereafter the business has been closed permanently and the appellant has returned to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ricultural activities, and the agricultural implements were sold during the year as the agricultural activities stood stopped. It was submitted that the assessee shifted to Allahabad, during the year under consideration. Our attention was drawn to the bank statement of Standard Chartered Bank for the financial year 2008-09, which is placed in Departmental Paper Book. 24b. The Ld. Sr. DR on the other hand submitted that there is no evidence on record to substantiate that the assessee infact carried out any agricultural activities during the year under consideration. It was submitted that there is no evidence on record to substantiate that the assessee sold any agricultural implements during the year under consideration. The ld. Sr. DR reiterated his contentions as were made for the earlier years before the Bench, and prayers were made to uphold the additions as were confirmed by ld. CIT(A). 25. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that the assessment of the assessee was reopened by Revenue by invoking provisions of Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act. Notice u/s 148 was issued by AO to the assessee requiring assessee to file ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. We order accordingly. 26. In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA nos. 6/Alld/2022 for ay: 2009-10 stand dismissed. 27. In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA nos. 3, 4 and 6/Alld/2022 for ay: 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively, stand dismissed, while appeal in ITA No. 5/Alld/2022 for ay: 2008-09 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on 15/03/2023 at Allahabad, U.P. ============= Document 1 à¤à¤š0यू0à¤à¤«0 दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ विकà¥à¤°à¤¯ किठगठमकान से पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¤ राशि को जमा करना दिनांक 02.01.2006 धनराशि (रमे) पà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° से पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¤ राशि को जमा करना कृषि आय को à....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh deposit 1. The authority below has added the above amount as under:- Deposit is standard chartered bank account no. 625100015697 Total deposit 88,10,338/- Less deposit accepted 60,83,000/- Addition 27,27,338/- 2. The A.O. in Para 3 of the order has mentioned Rs.60,83,000/- Bank deposit and in Para 4 has mentioned Rs.88,10,338/- which is itself is contradictory. 3. The total deposit is standard chartered Bank was as under:- By cash 27,61,500/- 60,42,103/ By cheque Total 88,03,603/- Bank statement of standard chartered bank is enclosed. Document 4 4. That sources of deposit was from agriculture Rs.23.83,000/- and deposit by partner Shashi Singh and Smt Anita Kesarwani and by the appellant jointly for construction of Flat at BahadurGanj, Allahabad as per agreement dated 15/11/2005 copies of which has been filed in A.Y. 2006-07 showing detail of total expenses year wise i.e. A.Y. 2006-07 Rs.16,00,072/- 2007-08 Rs.38,60,900/- A.Y. 2008-09 Rs.6,68,350/- and in A.Y. 2009-10 Rs.46,935/- mentioned on page 32 to 48 filed in A.Y. 2006-07 Paper book. The amount and cash deposit were made by the appellant, Smt Shashi S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00,000/- A.Y. 2008-09 A.Y. 2007-08 A.Y. 2009-10 Rs. 22,00,000/- Rs. 34,00,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/- âš« Such a huge variation in the agricultural income in different years from one and the same measurement/area of land is very unlikely and unrealistic. Document 6 About Aroma Oil Business Similarly, the figures of gross receipts and expenses relating to Aroma O Business stated as per various submissions are different and at variance with each other, as indicated below Aspet: computation of II imp) & reply dated 10.02.2014 pp.24) Gross receipts: 2,50,000/ Less: Expenses Net profit (-1.65.000 85,000/- P&L a's filed before the Bench vide paper book dated 07.06.2022 pp.49 3,50,000/- Gross receipts : Less: Expenses :(1.17.000 2,33,000/- Net profit 8 About source of deposits in the A's Standard Chartered Bank a/e no. 62510015697 as stated before the AO: Vide replies dated 05.02.2014, 6.03.2014 & 11.03.2014 (pp. 22/26-27/34). (pp. 32-68) the assessee stated that the overall deposits in the said bank a/c aggregated to Rs. 60,83,000/- and source thereof was stated as under (reproduced/pp 22-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... comes to Rs. 27,61,500/- & cheque deposits Rs. 60,39,103/- as per summary given below:- Cash deposits (Rs.) Cheque/Trf. deposits (Rs.) 04.04.2006 Rs.73,500/- 17.04.2006 2,00,000/- 05.04.2006 1,06,000/- 09.05.2006 9,603/- 12.05.2006 4,87,000/- 18.05.2006 50,000/- 06.06.2006 31,000/- 20.05.2006 50,000/- 17.08.2006 50,000/- 17.08.2006 5,000/- 09.09.2006 53,000/- 17.08.2006 9,500/- 07.10.2006 8,00,000/- 25.08.2006 1,00,000/- 09.11.2006 45,000/- 18.09.2006 25,000/- 10.11.2006 29,500/- 25.09.2006 20,000/- 27.11.2006 40,000/- 27.09.2006 2,25,000/- 16.12.2006 28,000/- 30.10.2006 2,00,000/- 29.01.2007 3,40,000/- 02.11.2006 2,00,000/- 02.02.2007 1,50,000/- 04.11.2006 2,00,000/- 02.02.2007 5,00,000/- 21.12.2006 3,00,000/- 14.02.2007 28,500/- 22.12.2006 30,000/- Total 27,61,500/- 23.01.2007 15,000/- 31.01.2007 2,50,000/- 31.01.2007 5,00,000/- 31.01.2007 9,50,000/- 21.02.2007 1,50,000/- 05.03.2007 25,00,000/- 13.03.2007 50,000/- - Total 60,39,103/- Correct amount ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5/- Less out of flat sale 48,51,000/- (-) 38,00,000/- 74,50,755/- Copy of bank statement is enclosed. b) The total deposit including cash and cheque were only 73,50,755/- as per bank statement attached of standard chartered bank account no.62510015697 and not Rs.1,77,77,197/- mentioned by A.O. Bank statement is enclosed from 1/4/2007 to 31/3/2008. was c) Similarly bank deposit Rs.77,86,514/- has been added twice adding Rs.28,23,159/- and again Rs.10,190,683/- total addition 10,190,683+28,13,159/- 13,003,842/- without considering the full fact. d) Appellant had Bank account in Standard chartered bank and the A.O. has not mentioned the bank detail and added Rs.10,190,683/- on the basis of AIR and without any opportunity as to which bank Rs.1,79,77,197/- has been deposited. e) In this connection written reply has been filed at the time of assessment proceeding on 10/2/2014 and filed details of sale of 10 Flats sold for Rs.48,51,000/- the appellant also requested to the A.O. to send notices to Partner Smt Shashi Singh and Smt Anita Kesarwani as they had also invested Rs.60,00,000/-in construction of flat copy of reply filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y unlikely and unrealistic. Moreover, there are no evidences in support of any of the above figures of receipts & expenses. The Id. AR's contention (as per reply dated 10.02.2014/ pp 31-33) that the lease of the agricultural land was for 10 years is apparently incorrect, as the initial lease (even if it was made) was for a period of 03 years only subject to further renewal but there is no evidence that the same was ever renewed. There is no past history or subsequent history of the assessee's such huge agricultural income in the past or subsequent years (except for the years under appeal i.e. A.Y. 2006-07 to 2009-10). Document 13 • for the years under appeal i.e. A.Y, 2006-07 to 2009-10, returns were filed only No returns have been filed by the assessee for the past and subsequent years. Even u/s 148 (and not u/s 139). The quantum of agricultural income Sirsa Farm (12.36 Hectares) in the years under appeal is inconsistent year to eclaimed to have been derived from the said year, which is clear from the year wise figures below: Agricultural A.Y. 2006-07 income claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- or 7,00,000/- A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redited on 30.06.2007, 30.09.2007 , 31.12.2007& 31.03.2008 respectively), out of which total of cash deposits comes to Rs. 50,17,400/- & cheque deposits Rs. 26,96,355/- as per summary given below:- Cash deposits (Rs.) Cheque/ Trf. deposits (Rs.) (pp 96-108) 04.05.2007 2,23,000/- 08.05.2007 04.04.2007 8,00,000/- 1,03,600/- 14.05.2007 17.05.2007 50,000/- 1,60,000/- 15.05.2007 2,00,000/- 22.05.2007 50,000/- 23.05.2007 24.05.2007 50,000/- 40,000/- 11.09.2007 30.05.2007 50,000/- 17,000/- 21.09.2007 24.09.2007 25,000/- 24,000/- 25.09.2007 5,16,000/- 20.11.2007 50,000/- 06.11.2007 27.11.2007 7,50,000/- 14.12.2007 95,000/- 06.12.2007 10,23,355/- 5,22,000/- 08.01.2008 2,07,000/- 29.01.2008 71,000/- 29.02.2008 3,00,000/- 19.12.2007 3,50,000/- 27.12.2007 2,00,000/- 10.03.2008 20,000/- Total 26,96,353/- 01.01.2008 2,18,000/- 03.01.2008 72,300/- 14.01.2008 31,500/- 01.02.2008 90,000/- 18.02.2008 4,15,000/- 29.02.2008 1,90,000/- 01.03.2008 3,50,000/- 19.03.2008 4,50,000/- Total 50,17,400/- Co....