Tribunal held that just because the assessee owned a fleet of vehicles, it did not mean that the assessee may not have agricultural income. The Assessing Officer accepted that the assessee had produced the patta in respect of 87.57 acres of land. The other pattas which had been produced were in respect of lands in the name of the assessee’s married daughter and his son and others. The Assessing Officer further accepted the fact that there were 501 coconut trees on the land. He also accepted that there was a mango orchard on the land. Thus the agricultural income declared by the assessee did not need any interference. The Assessing Officer was directed to accept the agricultural income as disclosed by the assessee.( AY.2011-12, 2012-13)