BRIJESH KUMAR GOSWAMI,DELHI V. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

ITA 2415/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Brijesh Kumar Goswami, who appealed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issues in dispute were the additions made by the AO regarding income from share trading and agricultural activities. The AO had assessed a higher income than declared by Goswami, attributing business income from share trading and denying exemption on agricultural income. The Tribunal examined the evidence and previous rulings, particularly noting a similar case for AY 2010-11 where agricultural income was accepted. The Tribunal's decision balanced the evidence presented and the legal provisions, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775846 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 6303/Del/2019 for AY 2010-11
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC’’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 2415/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2012-13 BRIJESH KUMAR GOSWAMI, vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, A-305, MAJLIS PARK, ADARSH WARD 36(2), NEW DEHI NAGAR, NEW DEHI – 110 033 (PAN: ADAPG2435L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee being individual, not having filed his income tax return for the AY 2012-13, simply for the reason that the total income for the year was less than the threshold limit of assessment. In the meanwhile, in compliance to notice u/s. 148 dated 30.3.2019 the assessee furnished his return of income, declaring taxable income of Rs. 13,521/- and claimed refund of Rs. 2,230/-. Assessment in this case was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 8,60,180/- as against the returned income of Rs. 13,520/- and made the addition of Rs. 1,09,640/- on account of share trading transactions with MCX and Rs. 71,316/- on account of share trading with BSE and a sum of Rs. 87,584/- as adhoc disallowance of expenditure claimed. Besides this, he has also denied the exemption on account of agricultural income, thereby making Printed from counselvise.com 2 | P a g e additions of Rs. 5,78,120/-. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice of hearing, hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 4. As regards, addition of Rs. 1,09,640/- being 2% of total commodities/ share transactions is concerned, it was the contention of the Assessee made in the grounds of appeal that the same has already been offered to tax by the assessee in his return filed on 14.9.2019. AO noted that in order to enquire about the transaction, notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act issued to MCX trading and Bombay Stock Exchange, the details received from MCX was duly considered and found that the assessee has earned the business income of Rs. 1,09,640/- through transaction made in multiple commodity exchange, hence, the addition was made, which was rightly been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue, hence, I affirm the same and decide the issue in dispute against the assessee. 5. As regards, addition of Rs. 71,316/- being 0.5% (wrongly stated as 5%) of share trading turnover of Rs. 14,26,313/- through Bombay Stock Exchange is concerned, it was the contention of the assessee that the same has already been offered to tax by the appellant in its return filed on 14.9.2019. AO noted that on perusal of the information containing on income tax statement of the assessee, he noted that assessee has made total sale (turnover) of Rs. 14,26,313/- through Bombay Stock Exchange but not declared. Its business income earned through these transaction. Considering the rational nature of profit, AO estimated 0.5% of the total transaction as its profit as business income, which in my view is quite tenable, which was further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue, hence, I affirm the same and decide the issue in dispute against the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 3 | P a g e 6. As regards addition of Rs. 5,78,120/- made by the AO by treating the agriculture income as income from other sources. It was the contention of the assessee made in the grounds of appeal that lower authorities erred in making and upholding the addition only on the ground of suspicion that there was nothing on record to discredit the assessee in claiming income of Rs. 5,78,120/- as exempt under section 10(1) of the Act. AO noted that assessee has not done agriculture activities and income shown by him is the money of assessee itself earned by him and same is being shown in the garb of agriculture income and which was not offered for taxation, hence, considering the non-agriculture exemption claimed by the assessee was added amounting to Rs. 5,78,120/- and similarly, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the same. It was the contention of the Assessee before the lower authorities that the assessee is a bona fide owner of agricultural land measuring approx. 28 acres situated at Barsana (Mathura), UP of which 15.75 acres is cultivated land – having succeeded from his grand-father (late Sh. Nannu Ram Goswami) and have given on contract farming. The agricultural produce (sarson) has been sold in Krishi Upaj Mandi (Bharatpur) and receipts for the same have been furnished before the AO, who rejected the same with the remarks it did not seems to be genuine without verifying the authenticity and genuineness and in the absence of any documentary evidence to establish his contention that the sell vouchers for agricultural produce are not bonafide. It was the further contention of the assessee that exactly similar issue has earlier came up for verification and examination in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 where the claim of exemption on account of agricultural income has been rejected by the AO, but the ITAT, Delhi SMC Bench in ITA No. 6303/Del/2019 for AY 2010-11, dated 11/08/2022 has decided the issue of agricultural income in assessee’s favour, on the basis of remand report of the AO, which reads as under: “3. With regard to the agricultural income, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not file any documentary evidence with respect to the agricultural income to the tune of Rs. 4,68,500/-. Presently, the assessee filed the invoice copy of Printed from counselvise.com 4 | P a g e sale proceeds of the agricultural products wherein it has been mentioned that the assessee i.e. Shri Brijesh Kumar Goswami made transactions in the agricultural products and paid agricultural fees upon it.” 6.1 In view of the above factual matrix and precedent in assessee’s own case and after carefully perusing the records, I find plausible contention in the assessee’s view, as discussed above, that there is sufficient explanation relating to assessee’s agricultural income, therefore, in my considered view, the addition of Rs. 5,78,120/- deserve to be deleted. I hold and direct accordingly. Resultantly, the assessee is entitled for necessary exemption, if any, in accordance with law. 7. As regards estimated adhoc addition of Rs. 87,584/- being total 30% of total expense of Rs. 2,91,945/- is claimed under staff salary, telephone expenses, car maintenance, computer maintenance, broadband expenses, electricity, misc. expenses and brokerage expenses is concerned, it is noted that it is the contention of the assessee that the AO is admitting that out of total claim of expenditure of Rs. 4,36,235/- of which, the expenditure claimed totaling to Rs. 2,91,945/- are subject to 30% disallowance of Rs. 87,854/-. Thus, out of total claim of expenditure of Rs. 4,36,235/-, the disallowance are of bona fide business expenditure against the estimated income of Rs. 1,80,956/-. However, the AO noted since the assessee has failed to furnish the bill/voucher of the expenses, he estimated the same @30% and Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. After carefully perusing the records, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s contentions before the lower authorities and Revenue’s contention in support of the impugned addition. I find no reason to accept either parties stand in entirety. This is for the precise reason that neither the assessee has been able to properly explain the proof of expenses nor the department could simply brush aside all the relevant evidence at one go. Be that as it may, the Printed from counselvise.com 5 | P a g e tribunal is of the considered view that in these peculiar facts, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to confirm the expenses to the extent of 10% instead of 30% of the total expenses of Rs. 2,91,945/-, only with a rider that the same shall not be as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 8. In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.09.2025. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT Date: 12.09.2025 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench Printed from counselvise.com "