GEETA VIPULKUMAR CHAUDHARY,MEHSANA V. THE ACIT, CIRCLE MEHSANA, MEHSANA

ITA 1274/AHD/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Geeta Vipulkumar Chaudhary against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-1, Nashik, which confirmed an addition of Rs.8,14,054/- to her income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer, who estimated the agricultural expenses at 40% of gross agricultural receipts, contrary to the 32.83% actually incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the application of a 40% expense rate, based on a precedent from a different case, was not automatically applicable and that each case should be considered on its own merits, taking into account various factors affecting agricultural expenses.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777974 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Shri Dhirubhai L. Narola & Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B.P. SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK R. SHAH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1274/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Geeta Vipulkumar Chaudhary, Rajkamal Compound, Highway Road, Mehsana – 384 002. (Gujarat). [PAN – ABHPP 7548 Q] Vs. A.C.I.T., Circle Mehsana, Income Tax Office, Opp. Jain Derasar, Modhera Four Roads, Mehsana – 382 715. (Gujarat). (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Deepak R. Shah, AR Revenue by Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-1, Nashik (in short “the Addl. CIT(A)”) dated 30.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. There was a delay of 94 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee had explained that the delay was for the reason that she was out of the country at the relevant period and her accountant also could not attend Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1274/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Geeta Vipulkumar Chaudhary vs. ACIT Page 2 of 5 the matter in time due to medical issues. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 16.02.2018 declaring income of Rs.59,27,350/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had shown gross agricultural receipt of Rs.1,13,56,045/- against which agricultural expense of Rs.37,28,364/- was claimed. The Assessing Officer found that the agricultural expense was only 32.83% of the gross agricultural receipt, which was low considering the fact that the ITAT in the case of Shri Dhirubhai L. Narola & Others had upheld the agricultural expense of 40% of the gross agricultural receipt. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the agricultural expense incurred by the assessee should be 40% of the gross agricultural receipt and accordingly the excess expense of Rs.8,14,054/- was held as incurred out of undisclosed income of the assessee. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 06.12.2019 at a total income of Rs.67,41,404/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Ld. Additional/joint CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. The assessee is now in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: - Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1274/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Geeta Vipulkumar Chaudhary vs. ACIT Page 3 of 5 “1. The Honourable CIT(A) erred in law and on facts confirming addition of Rs.8,14,054/- by estimating agriculture expenses at 40 percent of gross agriculture income instead of 32.83 percent actually incurred by assessee. The addition made by the Honourable CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. The same be deleted now. 2. The Honourable CIT(A) has erred in not properly appreciating the facts, various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order ex-parte due to non-attendance confirming high pitched addition. 3. The order passed by the Honourable CIT(A) is illegal, invalid and bad in law. It be so held now. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, change or modify any or all grounds of appeal before or at the time of the hearing.” 6. Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that there was no basis for making addition of Rs.8,14,054/- on account of agricultural expense by treating such expense to be at 40% of gross agricultural receipt, instead of 32.83% as actually incurred by the assessee. He submitted that the addition was based on mere presumption and without rejecting the evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard. He further submitted that the decision of the Ld. Tribunal in respect of agricultural expense in a third-party case cannot be automatically applied to the present case. 7. Per contra, Shri B.P. Srivastava, Ld. Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the course of assessment, the assessee had brought on record evidences for agricultural expense of Rs.37,28,364/- incurred by her, which was 32.83% of the gross agricultural receipt. Merely because the Tribunal had upheld Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1274/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Geeta Vipulkumar Chaudhary vs. ACIT Page 4 of 5 the agricultural expense @ 40% of the gross agricultural receipt in another case of Shri Dhirubhai L. Narola & Others, it does not automatically imply that the agricultural expense in every case will be @ 40% only. The agricultural expense may vary from case to case depending upon multifarious factors viz. area of land under cultivation, nature of crop, level of mechanization, use of fertilizers and pesticides, irrigation facilities etc. In the present case, the Assessing Officer neither disputed the gross agricultural receipt disclosed by the assessee nor found fault with the evidences for agricultural expense brought on record by the assessee. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is found to be based on mere presumption and no evidence was brought on record to establish that the assessee had incurred additional agricultural expense of Rs.8,14,054/-. Therefore, the addition as made by the AO can’t be sustained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.8,14,054/- on account of agricultural expenses, is deleted. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 7th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Ahmedabad, the 7th October, 2025 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) The PCIT (4) The CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1274/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Geeta Vipulkumar Chaudhary vs. ACIT Page 5 of 5 By order TRUE COPYE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "