Basera Construction, Mumbai vs Assessee

M/s. Basera Construction DCIT, Central Circle-9 Plot No. 112, Ground Floor Vs. CGO Bldg. Annexe 6th Road, TPS-III, Khar Road (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400052 PAN - AAAFB4438R Appellant Respondent

Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Vijay Kumar Boara

Date of Hearing: 29.01.2015 Date of Pronouncement: 29.01.2015

ORDER

Per D. Manmohan, V.P.

These two appeals are filed at the instance of the assessee firm and they are directed against the common order passed by CIT(A)-37, Mumbai.

2. Assessee firm is engaged in the business of undertaking civil contracts. For the year under consideration assessee declared certain agricultural income out of which 50% was disallowed by the AO. In an appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 1996-97, A.Y. 1998-99 and A.Y. 2001- 02 assessee contended that the AO did not make any well grounded estimate and simply relied upon the earlier assessment orders on the ground that the matter is very old and it is difficult to collect evidence. It was also submitted that the assessee disclosed agricultural income in the past also and the same were accepted with minor disallowances. He furnished details of the agricultural income disclosed for A.Y. 2006-07, 2004-05, 2003-04 and 2001-02 to submit that substantial agricultural income was shown, which were accepted by the AO.

3. The learned CIT(A) observed that in so far as A.Y. 1996-97 is concerned there is no certificate from the Revenue authorities nor from 2 ITA No. 7684 & 7687/Mum/2011 M/s. Basera Construction

Village Talathi as regard land holding as well as agricultural operations. Assessee had not disclosed agricultural equipments and tools, tractors, irrigation pumps, bullock carts, details of purchase of seeds, fertilizers, etc. Despite non-furnishing of details the AO estimated agricultural income at Rs.1,50,163/-. The contention of the assessee was that the assessee cultivated and sold grapes in F.Y. 1996-97. It was also submitted that it has also cultivated Brinjal, Bhendi, Palak, Dhania, Cucumber, Tomato, ground nut, Mosambi and Millets. However, the Revenue authorities have not certified cultivation of these crops. No independent third party evidence was available. Though it was not specified anywhere as to what is the extent of agricultural land, it appears that the assessee claimed to have cultivated 1 hector 62 R land which is equivalent to 4.02 acres of land. In the absence of any evidence the learned CIT(A) confirmed the estimate of agricultural income of Rs.1.05,163/- as against the claim of Rs.2,10,325/-. Similarly, for A.Y. 2001-02 the AO accepted the agricultural income of Rs.2,26,178/- and the balance of Rs.2,26,210 was treated as income from other sources. In other words, the assessee claimed to have earned agricultural income of Rs.4,22,356/- but in the absence of details the AO estimated the income at Rs.2,26,178/-, which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Further aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4. Though notice was issued by RPAD and thereafter adjourned from time to time none appeared on behalf of the assessee. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal exparte, qua the assessee.

5. At the time of hearing the learned D.R. placed before me a copy of the order of ITAT "B" Bench, Mumbai in assessee's own case for A.Y. 1998-99 to submit that even in the aforementioned case no details were furnished with regard to quality of land and other authenticated details with regard to sale of agricultural produce and thus the Tribunal confirmed the action of the CIT(A) (ITA No. 7685/Mum/2011 dated 11.08.2014).

6. I have considered the submission of the learned D.R. carefully and perused the record. Even in these two appeals there is no evidence on 3 ITA No. 7684 & 7687/Mum/2011 M/s. Basera Construction

record to prove that the assessee earned such huge agricultural income in the years under consideration. In the absence of any material to justify the earning of agricultural income I am of the view that the learned CIT(A) is justified in confirming the action of the AO. In fact the AO was more generous in estimating the agricultural income in the years under consideration which is at the higher side compared to the standards of income earned on wet lands in India.

7. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2015.

Sd/-

(D. Manmohan) Vice President

Mumbai, Dated: 29th January, 2015

Copy to:

1. The Appellant

2. The Respondent

3. The CIT(A) - 27, Mumbai

4. The CIT- 16, Mumbai City

5. The DR, "SMC" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai

By Order

//True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai n.p.