News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax | PPE Safety Kit SITRA Approved | PPE Safety Kit
From the Courts »
 Shree Choudhary Transport Co vs. ITO (Supreme Court)
 MCA designates Special Court in Gauhati for Speedy Trial of Offences under Companies Act, 2013
 M/s. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. 4-7/C, DDA Shopping Centre New Friends Colony New Delhi Vs DCIT, Circle 10(2) New Delhi.
 Shiv Raj Gupta vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 ICAI-ASB seeking views of Practicing Chartered Accountants on Questionnaire on application of Accounting Standards by Micro and Small Non-Corporate Entities by August 10, 2020.
 No Capital Gain Tax on Conversion of Land held as Stock, Transferred upon HUF-partition: Karnataka HC
 Renu T Tharani vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 ITAT grants Tax Exemption to Charitable Trust engaged in providing Mid-Day Meal to School Students
 Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 ITAT orders to grant Interest on Refund under Section 244 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Tata Steel
 Suresh Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

M/s. Basera Construction Plot No. 112, Ground Floor 6th Road, TPS-III, Khar Road (W) Mumbai 400052 VS DCIT, Central Circle-9 CGO Bldg. Annexe M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020
January, 30th 2015
                          "SMC" Bench, Mumbai

                 Before Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President

                     ITA No. 7684 & 7687/Mum/2011
                   (Assessment Years: 1996-97 & 2001-02)

     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


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

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

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.

                                                     (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
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us | PPE Kit SITRA Approved | PPE Safety Kit
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting