1. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), dated 16-7-2007 for assessment year 2004-05.
2. The only issue raised in this appeal relates to the denial of the claim of agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 90,627. The assessing officer made an addition of Rs. 90,627 as income from other sources out of total agricultural income of Rs. 1,36,047 claimed by the assessee.
The assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 42,570 and also showing agricultural income of Rs. 2,48,427. During the course of assessment proceedings, the figure of agricultural income was substituted by Rs. 1,36,047 as the amount of Rs. 2,48,427 represented gross agricultural receipts. In support of agricultural income, the assessee had filed copies of Girdawari report, sale receipts and electricity bills. A statement of the assessee was recorded wherein he deposed that he owned 57 Bighas of land out of which 20 Bighas were irrigated. It was also stated that the family of the assessee and the assessee were staying at Mumbai and the agricultural activities are got done through labourers. It has been noted by the assessing officer that the assessee sold 60 quintals of Sarson for a sum of Rs. 90,627 to Shri Chittarmal. The assessing officer also obtained the Girdawari report directly from the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar has stated therein that generally the yield of Sarson in the area was of two quintals per Bigha. From the Girdawari report it was also noted that the assessee did not sow the crop of Sarson, in Samvat year 2057 to Samvat year 2059. But it was sown in the Samvat year 2060 which was not ready for sale upto 31st March, 2004 and, therefore, the learned assessing officer held that it was not possible for the assessee to sell 60 quintals of Sarson to Shri Chhitarmal on 13th Sept., 2003. When required the assessee explained that he grew Sarson in 16 Bighas and had 10 quintals in stock from earlier period. He also stated in Samvat year 2059 (April, 2003) total crop of Sarson was 41 quintals. The assessee submitted that the report of Patwari in the form of Girdawari was not incorrect. But the assessing officer added a sum of Rs. 90,627 by treating it as 'income from other sources'. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed this addition and hence the assessee is in second appeal.
3. I have heard the rival submissions and have perused the evidences available on record carefully.
4. It has been submitted by learned Authorised Representative in his written submissions as well as in oral submissions that the assessee is the permanent resident of village Runwa but stays in Bombay. He is solely dependent on agricultural income and interest income. He has no other source of income. It has been further submitted that the assessee had filed the return of income for the year ending 31-3-2003 on 29-9-2003 along with the computation of total income and a statement of affairs for the year ending 31-3-2003. The assessee has shown the agricultural income of Rs. 47,600 and interest income of Rs. 50,120 and has shown the stock of agricultural produce amounting to Rs. 35,600.
The copies of the same have been enclosed as Annex. 1. The detail of closing stock of the mustard (Sarson) and other items as on 31-3-2003 is shown as under: It is also submitted that the assessing officer has accepted the income declared in the return. A copy of Bill No. 96, dated 13-9-2003 of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kuchaman city, through which the sale of Sarson was made by the assessee himself and the assessee's signature is also on the bill as recipient, has also been filed. On the other hand, the learned departmental Representative has placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below.
5. After examining the rival submissions, it is found that the assessing officer has nowhere noted that the assessee is having another source of income. He is also not found to be engaged in the trading of crops. The assessee is the owner of the agricultural land as stated above and this fact has also not been disputed by the revenue. In the earlier year the assessing officer has accepted the agricultural income declared by the assessee in contrast to the report of Tehsildar. A newspaper cutting appearing in Rajasthan Patrika dated 17th Sept., 2005 has been placed on record. In this news item, it is mentioned that the Patwaries are filling the Girdawari registers by sitting in their offices/houses and no physical attempt was being made by them in this regard. Therefore, they were directed to be careful in future. I have seen that news items from which it is clear that the record of the Patwari cannot be relied, insofar as the recording of Girdawari is concerned. Since the assessee has no other source(s) of income other than agricultural income, and the receipt of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is very much there, the claim of the assessee has to be accepted. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal in the cases of (1) Late S. M. Bashir v. ITO (1982) 13 TTJ (All) 236, (2) Pradeep Batra v. Inspecting Asstt. CIT (1991) 39 ITD (Del) 406, (3) Assistant Commissioner v. Devi Lal Soni (2002) 70 TTJ (Jd) 24 and (4) Income Tax Officer v. Rajendra Tiwari . By relying on the ratio of the above decisions vis-a-vis evidences produced by the assessee, there is no option but to accept the claim of the assessee.
I, therefore, overturn, the finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the claim of the assessee. The entire addition so made is hereby ordered to be deleted.