The ITO, Ward-2(2), JAMNAGAR V. Shri Vikram Arjan Odedara, JAMNAGAR

ITA 1076/RJT/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 107624914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR J B JHAVERI
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN AGARWAL CA

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL: RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA JM AND SHRI B. R. JAIN AM ITA NO. 1076/RJT/2010 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAMNAGAR. ( / APPELLANT V/S SHRI VIKRAM ARJAN ODEDARA, PROP. OF ORIENT TRANSPORT CO., NEAR GALAXY CINEMA, JAMNAGAR. PAN- AACPO5001F / RESPONDENT ! '# / REVENUE BY DR. J.B. JHAVERI, D.R. $% ! '# / ASSESSEE BY SHRI CHETAN AGARWAL, C.A. ' & ' %( / DATE OF HEARING 07/01/2014 ) %( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09/01/2014 / ORDER PER B. R. JAIN, A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/05/2010 OF SHRI R.N. PRASAD, LEARNED CIT(A), JAMNAGAR RAISES T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS. 255665/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF GRO SS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 509573/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACTUAL RECEIPT S NOT OFFERED TO TAX. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A MERE TRANSPORT COMMISSION AGENT AND THEREBY HE WAS NO REQUIRED TO INCLUDE THESE RECEIPT S AS HIS INCOME PARTICULARLY WHEN BOTH THE PARTIES, NAMELY M ARAL OVERSEAS LTD. AND RELOGISTICS (AHMEDABAD) PVT. LTD. HAVE CONFIRMED TO HAVE PAID ENTIRE AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSE E AND DENIED TO HAVE PAID ANY COMMISSION TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 5. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED . ITA 1076/RJT/2010 2 6. THAT THE REVENUE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, LAT ER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. IN GROUND NO. 1 IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, FOUND THAT THE ONLY DISPUTE IS OF SALES BILLS WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO PR ODUCE. HE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE HISTORY OF THE CASE, FOUND THE CLAI M OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO BE GENUINE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION STOOD DELE TED. 3. HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL ON RECO RD. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SH OW THAT THERE IS ANY CHANGE IN ACTIVITY OF AGRICULTURE FARMING DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED ASSESSEE S HISTORY OF DERIVING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AND ACCEPTED THE CLAIM TO B E GENUINE. ON THE PECULIAR FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION REACHED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE GROUND RAISED IN APPEAL, ACCORD INGLY, STANDS REJECTED. 4. IN GROUND NO. 2 IN APPEAL, THE A.O. BEING OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSPORT RECEIPTS FOR THE AMOUNT OF TAX CREDIT AT SOURCE HAVE NOT BEEN RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE THERETO HAVING BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR THEREIN BY THE ASSESSEE, HE PROCEEDED TO ADD THE NET RECEIPTS RS. 5,09,573/- AS ASSESSEES INCOM E FROM CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY ACCOUNTS FOR COMMISSION INCOME. HE DO ES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE FREIGHT RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS. ACCORDINGLY, FOL LOWING THE DECISION OF RAJKOT BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT, C IRCLE-2, JAMNAGAR VS. JAYSHREE M. SHAH IN ITA NO. 214/RJT./2004 FOR THE A .Y. 2000-01, DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION AS CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS. HE, HOWEVER, DIRECTED THE A.O. TO TREAT THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON SUCH RECEIPTS AS ASSESSEES INCOME. ITA 1076/RJT/2010 3 6. HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL ON RECO RD. THE LD. CIT(A) IS FOUND TO HAVE FOLLOWED RAJKOT TRIBUNALS DECISION AS STATED HEREINABOVE IN PARA 5 FOR DELETING THE ADDITION. NO INTERFERENCE I S CONSIDERED NECESSARY. THE GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 5 RAISED IN APPEAL, ACCORDINGL Y STAND REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY REVENUE STANDS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/01/2014. SD/- SD/- ( T. K. SHARMA ) ( B. R. JAIN ) '* /JUDICIAL MEMBER #( '* / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *#+ ,*-/ ORDER DATE 09/01/2014 /RAJKOT *RANJAN / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAM NAGAR 2. /RESPONDENT- SHRI VIKRAM ARJAN ODEDARA, JAMNAGAR. 3. '-2- % & 3% / CIT-I, RAJKOT. 4. & 3%- / CIT (A)-, JAMNAGAR. 5. 789 % , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. 9; <= / GUARD FILE. *#+ '# / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY, , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT.