Shri Bhavesh Jagdishbhai Chaudhari, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1008/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2375 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIV SEWAK
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.1008/AHD/2015 /BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR: 2011-2012 SHRI BHAVESH JAGDISHBHAI CHAUDHARI 10, NISARG BUNGLOWS NR.SHIV DHARA APARTMENT NR. GULMOHAR PAT PLOT HEBATPUR, ROAD, THALTEJ AHMEDABAD 380 059. VS ITO, WARD-6(2) AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD. %& / (APPELLANT) '( %& / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SHIV SEWAK, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 13/01/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/01/2016 )*/ O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD DATED 27.01.2015 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2011- 2012. 2. SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,000/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.3.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1, 62,650/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.23,44,386/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE A CT WAS ISSUED ON 7.9.2012. ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS IT REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ITA NO.1008/AHD/2015 2 GROSS AGRICULTURE RECEIPT OF RS.23,44,385/-. ACCOR DING TO THE LD.AO NORMALLY 40% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS ARE TO BE EXPENDED ON AGR ICULTURE OPERATIONS. THE EXPENSES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE GROSS RECEIPTS. HE CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE ESTIMATED ADDITION OUGHT NOT TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED AGRICULTURE EXPENSES . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A DETAILED SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DATED 24.1.2014. HE POINTED OUT THAT HE HAD ANAR ( POMEGRANATES) ORCHID, WHERE 47,311 KGS. OF POMEGRAN ATES HAS BEEN PRODUCED. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ERANDA HAVING VALUE OF RS.54,805/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT A SUM OF RS.3, 48,457/- ON THE CROP OF POMEGRANATES. HE SUBMITTED DETAILS ABOUT THE PLANT MAINTENANCE, DRIP IRRIGATION, TUBEWELL, LABOUR EXPENSES ETC. THE LD. AO HAS GONE THROUGH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT 20% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS CAN FAIRLY BE ESTIMATED TOWARDS THE EXPENDITURE FOR AGR ICULTURE ACTIVITIES. THE AO HAS WORKED OUT A SUM OF RS.5,38,570/- AND MADE ADDI TION OF THE DIFFERENCE. IN THIS WAY, THE LD.AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,90 ,113/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT O F THE BOOKS. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.1,25,000/-. 4. SHRI DIVETIA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT T HE VERY OUTSET CONTENDED THAT POMEGRANATES ORCHID IS NOT LABOUR INTENSIVE OR CHID. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE DEEPER CARE, THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REASONABLE, AND NO ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OUGHT TO BE MADE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN PARA-4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE A SSESSEE HAS NARRATED EACH AND EVERY STEP REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN FOR MAINTAINING POMEGRANATES ORCHID. IT HAS SHOWN DIFFERENT EXPENDITURE UNDER DIFFERENT HEA DS IN THE SUBMISSIONS. ITA NO.1008/AHD/2015 3 HOWEVER, AFTER LOOKING TO THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO AND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE DIFFERENT HEADS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED THE EXPENDITURE ON ACTUA L BASIS. THESE ARE SUMMARY OF THE EXPENDITURE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. ESTIMATION OF EXPENDITURE AT 20% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS IN AGRICUL TURE OPERATION CANNOT BE ON HIGHER SIDE. THIS ACTIVITY IS NOT SUCH A PROFIT OR IENTED ACTIVITY, WHERE, THE FARMERS CAN GET NET PROFIT TO THE EXTENT OF 90%. T HE COST OF LABOR AND DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES OF PROVIDING WATER, SPRAYING P ESTICIDES ARE VERY COSTLY AFFAIR. THEREFORE, THE LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAV E RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. I, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18 TH JANUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER