TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT(A), the assessee thereafter took prompt action for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay should be condoned. Referring to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Uddhav Dattu Marathe HUF vs. ITO vide ITA No.1514/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2016-17, order dated 17.12.2024, he submitted that under identical circumstances, the Tribunal has condoned the delay in filing of the appeal on account of receipt of such order in the wrong e-mail ID. 3. The Ld. DR heavily relied opposed the condonation application filed by the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival arguments of both sides on the issue of condonation of delay. There is no dispute about the fact that there is a delay of 519 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to non-receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the correct e-mail ID, the assessee was not aware of any such order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Details of crop cultivated as under iv. Provide month wise sales of crop as under. v. Provide cash book for the year 2016-17 vi. Provide the names and complete address of the retail outlets. (Owned by firm and franchises) vii. Provide the ledger of packing material purchased viii. Provide the details of vehicles/ name and address of transporter for vehicles used for transporting the crops to market, outlets/customers. ix. Proof of having sold the agricultural product in the market. x. Proof of having grown the agricultural product directly from any land used for agriculture purpose. 8. According to the Assessing Officer, the details provided by the assessee do not commensurate with its claim of agricultural income and cash deposits. He therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why an amount of Rs. 50,99,000/- should not be brought to tax within the meaning of section 69A of the Act and also to explain as to why an amount of Rs. 30,53,475/- should not be treated as 'Income from other sources'. The relevant show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer reads as under: "You have provided 7/12 extract in the name of the partner's of the firm. The 7/12 was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and was handed over to VTP Food which was under cultivation for agriculture. However on verification of return of income of the land owners for A.Y 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 it is seen that they have not shown any agricultural income any of the year. This clearly shows that the land was not under cultivation. Thus you have been failed to establish that the land was under cultivation and the so called crops were cultivated and sold in cash. 10. Cash deposits in bank on 18.11.2016 You have opened bank account in Janata Sahakari Bank, Bhavani Peth, Branch on 18.06.2016. The total credit in this account from 18.06.2016 to 27.11.2016 is Rs. 1,28, 45,773/- The same includes one time cash deposits of Rs. 50,99,000/- made on 18.11.2016 during demonetization and receipt from the partners. You have deposited cash of Rs. 3000/- from 18.06.2016 to 17.11.2016 in this account, where as cash of Rs. 50, 99,000 on 18.11.2016 during demonetization. This deposit is abnormal and not commensurate with your bank transactions in this account which is in the garb of agricultural receipts. On verification of Bank account it is seen that amounts were credited from the partner by cheque and most of the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assests. This vehicle is used for deliveries, also some transport charges are debited to profit and loss account, some parties collect directly, Ledger of the same was attached in earlier submissions. Hence the contention that details of transportation are not provided, is incorrect. 4. Expenses incurred towards packing are also debited to the profit and loss account. Where it is sold in open market or at site no packing is required. Ledger of the same was attached in earlier submissions. Hence the contention that packing details are not provided, is incorrect. 5. A few sample bills of expenses were uploaded for your verification. Request you to kindly refer to the Balance sheet where in the fixed Assests an amount of Rs. 2.30 Crores appears as Capital Cost. This the expense incurred towards development of land. Only the expenses incurred towards cultivation like fertilizer, compost, labour, etc are claimed as expenses against agriculture receipts. 6. Some initial development of land was carried out in the books of the individual land owners. This development can be clearly justified by referring to the audited financials of the land owners for A.Y 2016-17. Hence, there is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the years up to 2015-16 most of the land was shown as Pad and Dongar pad" mean s hilly and uncultivated land. Whereas as per the entries from F.Y 2016-17 crop shown as Mango, Sitaphal and vegetables. Thus it is seen that the plantation was made in the year 2016-17. However it is beyond imagination that trees like Mangoes, and Sitaphal planted, groved and the yield sold in same year. As stated above the land owners i.e. the partners of the firm never showed agricultural income for any of the year in their return of income. This fact also shown that the land was not under cultivation. It is also unbelievable that such huge sale has been made in local market and the cash has been kept in hand up to 18.11.2019 when the assessee having two bank accounts. Further the amount deposited in bank on 18.11.2019 and on the same day transferred to the partner Shri. B.V. Palrecha. Thus as discussed in show cause notice the assesse failed to establish that it has actually earned agricultural income and the receipt was kept in hand and deposited in bank during the demonetization. This is nothing but after thought of the assessee. In the normal human parlance, in the ordinary course, it is huma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isfaction, i.e. at the instance of Investigation Wing. Without prejudice to this, the manner of deposit and withdrawal thereafter of Rs. 50,99,000/- also indicate that the money did not have any connection with the so called agricultural receipt of the appellant AOP. The analysis of the Assessing Officer at para 10, page 4 of the order appears to be more reasonable than the argument of the assessee. The argument of the assessee as well as the facts and circumstances related to deposit of Rs. 50,99,000/-on 18.11.2016 and that also during the demonetization period are against normal human probability. The assessee has not cooperated in enquiry by the CIT(A), which is evident from the non-compliance to the three letters issued as mentioned above. So, this addition is sustained." 12. So far as the addition of Rs. 30,53,475/- by treating the agricultural income as 'Income from other sources', he also sustained the same by observing as under: "7.0 Ground no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 relate to treatment of 30,53,475/- as income from other sources. The assessee has argued that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on irrelevant considerations as well as on conjecture and surmises. The appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not complied to the enquiries raised during the appellate proceedings. 4] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the cash deposit of Rs. 50,99,000/- in the bank account during the demonetization was beyond human probabilities and hence, addition was rightly made by the learned A.O. 5] The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the cash deposited in the bank account of Rs. 50,99,000/- was out of the agricultural income earned by the assessee. 6] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee was carrying out agricultural operations at Village Malthan and the cash deposited in the bank account was out of the agricultural income generated by the assessee firm and therefore, the addition made of Rs. 50,99,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE is not justified and the same may kindly be deleted. 7] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had submitted various evidences to prove the agricultural activities carried out by it and accordingly, there was no reason to disbelieve the claim of the assessee and the addition made may kindly be deleted. 8] The assessee submits that due to change in employees the subsequent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and other income at Rs. 21,81,135/-. He submitted that a comparison of the Profit and Loss Account for all the three years would show that the assessee is consistently showing the receipt from agricultural operations. Further in the subsequent years such agricultural income has been accepted. Referring to page 10 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the various submissions made before the Assessing Officer. Referring to page 4 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the various details filed before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC which are as under: Subject: Enquiry for the purpose of appeal proceedings-reg. 1. Brief note about the activity related to agriculture. 2. Copy of Bank Statements for F.Y 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 3. Copy of invoices for sale of product. 4. Copy of trading, profit, loss account and balance sheet if any for F.Y 2014-15, 2015-16,2016-17, and 2017-18 5. Copy of ledger account of retail outlets as per list submitted. 6. Partnership deeds. 7. Any other evidence in support of your claim. 15. Referring to the copy of Cash Book for the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee has disclosed agricultural receipt of Rs. 1.62 crore. In the two subsequent years such agricultural receipt has been accepted and nothing has been added. It is also his submission that the cash so deposited in the bank account on 18.11.2016 is on the basis of availability of cash in the Cash Book. Further, it is also his submission that when all the necessary evidences were produced before the Assessing Officer, he was not justified in disregarding the agricultural income and making the addition of Rs. 30,53,475/- apart from the addition of Rs. 50,99,000/-. 18. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact of holding of around 100 acres of agricultural land by the assessee. It is also an admitted fact that in the subsequent two assessment years i.e. assessment year 2018-19 and 2019-20 the assessee has disclosed the agricultural receipt of Rs. 49.12 lakh and Rs. 1.62 crore respectively. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has reflected such receipts on various dates in the Cash Book. Under these circumstances, disregarding the entire agricultural receipts in our opinion is not justified. At the same ti....