TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1049
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1961 (the Act) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - "1. The order of the authorities below is against the facts of the case and passed on assuming the facts which are unrealistic. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the provisions of the law, the Assessing Officer erred in estimating the agricultural expenditure at a certain percentage of agricultural income is against the fact, as the increase in the gross receipts may be for various reasons, which are not dependent on agricultural expenditure. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the provisions of the law, the authorities below erred in appreciating the fact, that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) has been deriving income only from the source of agriculture since the formation of the HUF. The assessee has been filing return of income regularly by declaring agricultural income in the past. For AY 2017-18 the assessee HUF filed its return of income on 22.03.2019 under Section 139(4) of the Act by declaring interest income or Rs. 53,660/- and agricultural income of Rs. 53,22,638/-. Thereafter the case had been selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to verify the 'agricultural income'. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has furnished a break-up of agricultural income derived in respect of different agricultural produce such as areca nut, cocoa, pepper, banana as well as tender ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....50,16.488/-). Thereafter, the case was selected and the Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide Assessment Order dated 21.08.2018. During the course of Assessment Proceedings, the appellant was asked to explain as to why the cultivation expenses are so low at Rs. 4,93,850/- corresponding to the high Agricultural income at Rs. 58.16,488/-. Since, the appellant could not explain the low expenses as above, the Assessing Officer after analyzing the yield of agricultural produce of the appellant vis-a-vis corresponding expenditure through different scientific and agricultural data available for the crop pattern observed that in order to harvest the agricultural produce, nearly 48.78% of the corresponding cultivation expertise is requ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e land record and crop information letter which is neither a relevant evidence (as the same was also produced during the assessment proceedings) nor explains the issue of low expenses at all. Therefore, the appellant has not been able to explain the issue to prove his contention as to why there was so low expense for the Agriculture produce. Further, appellant's own computation of the agricultural income in the subsequent years are not in line with the argument of the appellant and actually substantiates, the findings of the Assessing Officer in this year. In fact, the Assessing Officer has taken very Pragmatic view by analyzing and taking different factors, relevant data, available scientific and agricultural resources to arrive at the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re guess and surmises. Further the A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the AO has not brought into record a single evidence to show that the income is earned through other sources of income and the AO should follow rule of consistency as in the earlier years the same were never disputed by the AO. 7. The learned D.R., on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that on verification of return of income from assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-20 it was seen that expenditure varies from 8.49% to 66.77% which is quite abnormal and, therefore, the authorities below are justified in adopting the expenditure in connection with the agricultural activity @ 30% of the gross agricultural income. 8. We ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t form part of total income". Thus the item of Income specified in Section 10(1) of the Act or Chapter III of the Act would not be a part of total Income. There cannot be a charge of Tax u.s.4(1) of the Act on anything other than total income. We could not understand how by increasing the agriculture expenditure & reducing the Agriculture Income which are exempted U/s 10(1) of the Act would give rise to Total Income chargeable to tax U/s 4(1) of the Act under head "Income from Other Sources". We are of the opinion that the question of increasing or decreasing of any agriculture expenditure may become irrelevant if income of the assessee HUF is considered solely agriculture in nature & therefore merely by increasing the Agriculture expenditu....