Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The brief facts of the case for assessment year 2012-13 are that the assessee is a HUF and he is carrying agricultural activity by growing mango fruits and selling the same in South East Asian countries as well as local market. The assessee had filed return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 30.03.2013 declaring taxable income of Rs.

2,84,754/- and agricultural income of Rs. 29,81,938/-. In support of the agricultural income, the assessee has submitted an income and expenditure statement and also the balance sheet. In the assessment order, the AO has noted that the assessee is exporting mangoes from his own garden and purchasing and selling the same and showing it as his agricultural income. The assessee has submitted before the AO that he has not purchased mangoes from the market to export the same but he is only exporting the mangoes that are grown from his own mango garden. The AO has also raised one more doubt that the assessee has not maintained any record that what is the total tonnage of mangoes grown in his mango garden and therefore, he is of the opinion that as per the report of the District Collector, Thiruvallur which is based on the ITA Nos.1062 to 1067/Chny/2018 :- 3 -:

Nearly 20% will be the annual expenditure, resulting in a net profit of Rs.40,000/- to Rs. 65,000/- per acre. The same produce, in the same conditions, if brought to the market and sold to the final consumers, it will normally fetch double price. Further, if the produce is properly graded and packed in neat packing material, it will fetch still better price. If the produce is exported to foreign markets, it will fetch still a higher price. Therefore, the appellant's export sale of mangoes and realizing sale price at 6 times than that of local farm level sales, cannot be considered as abnormal or unrealistic. Of-course, in each level there will be additional expenditure to be incurred by the farmer. In fact, the existence of higher expenditure by the appellant for these respective activities, itself is an indication and evidence, that the appellant had actually engaged in these activities and realized higher sale price for his produce (mangoes). It is not out of context to mention here that, in the assessment order, the AO himself has observed that the assessee has resorted to out of box thinking, studied and explored the international markets carefully and has identified suitable markets to export, invested huge money in advance on packing material and freight, required for exporting mangoes to abroad, and has been exporting mangoes on a regular basis from year to year, to these countries. All these activities have added value in realising higher sale price for the mangoes produced by the appellant. Hence no adverse inference can be drawn in this regard.

the total costs. The balance represents cost of producing the mangoes by the appellant.

6.25 The AO has not brought on record any concrete or corroborative evidence, to show that the have been purchased from the open market at the price mentioned in the documents submitted to the bank by the appellant since it was only an estimation submitted by the appellant to the bank to obtain a higher loan facility In the absence of any corroborative evidence collected by the AO no adverse inference can be drawn on account of the above document given to the bank. 6.26 In any case, as detailed in the foregoing paras, the appellant's 15 acres of mango garden is capable of producing the mangoes exported by the appellant, during the years under consideration. 6.27 In view of the above stated detailed reasons, I am of the considered opinion, that the appellant's 15 acres of mango garden is capable of producing the mangoes exported by the appellant, during the years under consideration. Moreover, the mangoes produced by the appellant in his garden have remained in the same form of mangoes and sold in the same form to the foreign countries. The entire activity starting from growing the mangoes, harvesting them, grading, packing and exporting them abroad, constitutes agricultural activity and the entire sale proceeds derived by the appellant is nothing, but agricultural income and exempt from tax u/s 10 (1) of the IT Act.

Singapore and Malaysia. Accordingly to the AO, the assessee purchasing the mangoes apart from the production from his own mango garden exporting the same to Singapore and Malaysia, therefore he is of the opinion that the exporting activity carried by the assessee is a business activity and he estimated the agricultural income for acre is Rs. 35,000/- and remaining amount treated as a business income. In the assessment order, the AO has not established that the assessee is purchasing mangoes and exporting. We find that it is an assumption of the AO to come to the above conclusion without any material. The AO further came to the conclusion that the yielding from the assessee's mango garden cannot be more than 90 tons as against 168.3 tons, based on the report of the District Collector, Thiruvallur. This fact is examined by the Ld. CIT(A) at length and he gave a finding that the yielding of the mangoes depend upon the soil, maintenance, variety of mangoes and other aspects and the report of the District Collector is not a conclusive proof. We are fully agreeing with the Ld. CIT(A) on this count. We are also of the opinion that the report of the District Collect, Thiruvallur is not a conclusive proof. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered all the facts and came to the conclusion that the activity carried by the assessee is an agricultural activity and directed the AO to delete the addition. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).