TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating Ground No. 2 of the appeal regarding validity of the assessment framed in response to illegal and invalid notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The 2nd ground of appeal is as under:- "That the learned AO has erred in law and on facts by making reassessment in response to illegal, invalid notice issued under section 148 of the I.T. Act. As such, assessment framed in response to such a notice is void ab initio. The same be cancelled". 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts of Rs. 39,03,62,282/- as income of the assessee company from other sources and not income from agricultural operation in the summary manner without appreciating the explanation filed and material placed on record at the time of assessment, report of the Income Tax Department through the Inspector and findings of the CBI on the directions of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the proper manner. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts of Rs. 39,03,62,282/- as income of the assessee company from other sources and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turned loss of Rs. 1,83,85,773/-. 8. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts by not allowing the rebate on account of liability created by the SEBI vide order dated 04-02-2016 on account of lease money amounting to Rs. 15,09,72,412/- shown as income by the assessee company. 9. That the appellant craves to add or amend the grounds of appeal." 3. When the appeal was called for hearing, none was appeared on behalf of assessee to represent the case. There is no application for seeking adjournment either. On perusal of record, we find that the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhatinda has completed the affixture on dated 15/02/2023, under V Rule 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) related service of notice of ITAT-Amritsar Bench for intimation of hearing on dated 23/02/2023, in view of the above and considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose the appeal ex-parte qua after hearing the learned CIT-DR and on the basis of material available on the record. 4. Brief fact of the case is that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 148 by receiving information from the reliable source. The Ld. AO conducted the verification an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchase/acquisition of land and source of acquisition, detailed chart showing income & expenditure account under the head 'agriculture income', details of agriculture produce and parties to whom agriculture produce has been sold along with Form-J or any other documentary evidence in support of its claim of agricultural income. The assessee was also asked to produce books of account for verification along with bills/vouchers etc. However, the assessee neither filed any reply nor produced books of account for verification. Again the assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of agricultural income and also requested to produce books of account for the year under consideration. Summons u/s. 131 were also issued to the M.D. of the company requiring him to produce complete books of account for the A.Y. 2012-13 along with other information as called for earlier. However, despite giving numerous opportunities, the assessee neither produce any books of account/vouchers for verification nor any evidence was filed with regard to its claim of agricultural income. The assessee did not produce any bill/voucher from which the expenses such as crop expenses, labour expenses, plant purchas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., when the date of attaining of maturity of such plants which, grown in the year 2005 is in 2014 and if any income will have to be earned that may be from the A.Y. 2014-15 onwards not in the year under consideration. (iv) The assessee has failed to produce books of account, vouchers, bills of purchasing of plant etc. due to non production of books of account. The expenses claimed to be incurred on account of expenses claimed for earning of agricultural income could not be verified. In view of the above, whole of the income of Rs. 1,09,66,93,875/- shown by the company had been assessed by treating as income from unexplained other source and not agricultural income by applying the ratio of the judgments in the case of CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 35 ITR 312 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Court have held that the assessee has to put before the Income-tax Authorities proper material which will enable them to come to a conclusion that the income which is ought to be assessed, is agricultural income. It is not for the Income-tax Authorities to prove that it is not an agricultural income as well as relying upon the other case in the case of CIT v. Ramakrishna Deo [1956] 35 ITR 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which activities and expenses claimed to be incurred on labour, lease money, crop expenses, plant purchases could be verified. Accordingly, the huge agricultural income shown by the assessee was assessed as income under the head 'income from other sources'. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2009-10, it was stated by the assessee company that as per SEBI order dated 04.02.2016, it has to return back the lease money received and so revised Profit 85 Loss Account for the A.Y. 2007-08 to 2015-16 was filed. However, no documents/evidences to substantiate the figures shown in the revised P & L account were filed by the assessee. 4.1 The facts of the case under consideration are almost similar to the facts of the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 wherein agricultural income shown by the assessee was assessed as income under the head 'income from other sources'. 4.2 In the P & L account of audit report, the assessee has shown gross income at Rs. 39,03,62,282/- (including Lease money shown under the head agricultural income, at Rs. 38,34,86,813/-] and have claimed certain expenses. The assessee has not filed any evidence of expens....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bills etc could not be produced before the AO thereby disentitling him to verify the activities and expenses claimed to be incurred on labour, lease money, crop expenses, plant purchases etc. In fact, the appellant company followed up its non-cooperation in proving the agricultural income as had been done by it during the assessment proceedings of A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14. The AO categorically noted that the onus being on the appellant company to prove the genuineness of the agricultural income, remained undischarged. Thereafter, applying the law laid down in CIT Vs. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC), the AO treated the gross agricultural income shown by the appellant company as "income from other sources". In addition to that, the accretion to paid-up share capital and share premium as well as current liabilities and provisions, which could not be explained by the appellant company, was treated as unexplained cash credit and added back to the income. 3. In the appellate proceedings, the same grounds were taken as that taken against the assessment framed for A.Y. 2012-13. The said grounds stand decided by the order of this appellate authority dated 13/02/2017 in Appeal ....