Suchitra Kamble ORDER
Suchitra Kamble, Member (J)
1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 08.05.2018 passed by the CIT(A)-2, Vadodara for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
"1. The Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant had not discharged the primary onus is cast upon him in respect of sale proceeds of Agricultural products received from Shri Aakash Vagela, Kamlesh Gandhi Infrastructure And Collabera Technologies P. Ltd. from Shri Hez Parisar aggregating to Rs.2,60,305/- and Rs.18,625/- respectively.
2. The Learned CIT (Appeals)a erred in holding that the reply of the AR in relation to agricultural activities carried out by him was not convincing and further erred in holding that a sum of Rs.8,90,040/- was income arising out of non-agricultural activities.
3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in disregarding the contention raised by the appellant during the appellate proceedings and erred in confirming the estimation of Rs.8,90,040/- as business income.
4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the agricultural expenses cannot be less than 15 - 20% of the gross receipts and further erred in confirming that agricultural income was Rs.73,73,780/- against the agricultural income disclosed by the appellant at Rs.85,42,750/-."
3. The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 showing total income at Rs.1,97,520/- alongwith agricultural income at Rs.75,42,750/-. The case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny. Various notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued from time to time and served upon the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the agricultural income of Rs.85,42,750/- which was declared in return of income inadvertently as Rs.75,42,750/- due to oversight. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,60,305/- in respect of income from other sources alongwith addition of Rs.18,625/- under the same head and also made addition of Rs.8,90,040/- in respect of business income. The Assessing Officer also taken into account agricultural income of Rs.85,42,750/- out of this agricultural income of Rs.11,68,970/- and treated the same as business income/income from other sources and assessed the agricultural income at Rs.73,73,780/-.
4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not carried out any business activities and was not supposed to maintain books of accounts as the assessee is mainly engaged in agricultural activities of growing of Flower Plants, Vegetable Plants and various types of Lawns during the year under consideration. For the record purpose, the assessee maintained books of accounts and relevant documents and the details were submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR submitted that during the year under consideration, the only taxable income being income from salary and interest income from Bank FDR and Saving Bank Account totalling to Rs.1,97,520/- (after deduction of Rs.10,000/- claimed under Section 80TTA). Agricultural income earned to the extent of Rs.75,42,750/- was claimed as exempt income while filing the return of income. Due to the oversight, the agricultural income was shown at Rs.75,42,750/- while filing return of income instead of Rs.85,42,750/- which was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR further submitted gross agricultural income being Rs.90,50,270/- out of which expenses of Rs.5,07,520/- were claimed and hence agricultural income being Rs.85,42,750/-.
5.1. As regards to ground no.1 in respect of addition on account of treating agricultural income as income from other sources amounting to Rs.2,60,305/-, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has considered the transactions of sale of pl........