TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant had not discharged the primary onus is cast upon him in respect of sale proceeds of Agricultural products received from Shri Aakash Vagela, Kamlesh Gandhi Infrastructure And Collabera Technologies P. Ltd. from Shri Hez Parisar aggregating to Rs. 2,60,305/- and Rs. 18,625/- respectively. 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals)a erred in holding that the reply of the AR in relation to agricultural activities carried out by him was not convincing and further erred in holding that a sum of Rs. 8,90,040/- was income arising out of non-agricultural activities. 3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in disregarding the contention raised by the appellant during the appellate proceedings and erred in confirming the estimation of Rs. 8,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not carried out any business activities and was not supposed to maintain books of accounts as the assessee is mainly engaged in agricultural activities of growing of Flower Plants, Vegetable Plants and various types of Lawns during the year under consideration. For the record purpose, the assessee maintained books of accounts and relevant documents and the details were submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR submitted that during the year under consideration, the only taxable income being income from salary and interest income from Bank FDR and Saving Bank Account totalling to Rs. 1,97,520/- (after deduction of Rs. 10,000/- claimed under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stretch of imagination the transactions carried out are to be treated as income from other sources. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Tribunal in case of Cheil India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No.6183/Del/2014) and Vitrag Metal Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 46 ITR 201. 5.2 As regards to addition on account of treating part of agricultural income as income from other sources amounting to Rs. 18,625/-, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in treating part of the transaction with Shri Hez Parisar as income from other sources. The transactions with the said party are of Rs. 85,705/- from sale of plants as per books of accounts of the assessee and when information under Section 133(6) of the Act was called for, the party's ledger show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the assessee at Rs. 85,42,750/-. 6. The Ld. DR in respect of ground no.1 submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has rightly made addition to the extent of Rs. 2,60,305/- and Rs. 18,625 respectively as the parties to whom the agricultural produce was sold has not come up despite giving notice under Section 133(6) of the Act. Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). As regards to ground nos.2 & 3, the Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) was right in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 8,90,040/- as the assessee has not given the details in respect of whether said income was arising from agricultural activities or from the non-agricultural activities and the estimation of 33% of Rs. ....