SANJIV BIPIN BAROT, MUMBAI V. DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1092/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2906 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RUPA GAMI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 1092/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10) MR. SANJIV BIPIN BAROT 1 ST FLOOR, YOGIKRUPA, 14, JAWAHARNAGAR, S. V. ROAD, GOREGAON (WEST), MUMBAI-62 APPE LLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9(2), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: AABPB6747J /BY APPELLANT : MS. RUPA GAMI, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT : SHRI VINOD KUMAR, D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 13.06.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.06.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-20, MUMBAI, DA TED 09.11.2012 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) COMMITTED A GROSS ERROR OF LAW AND FACT IN CONFIRMI NG THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS . ITA NO.1092/MUM/13 A.Y. 09-10 [SANJIV BIPIN BAROT V S.DCIT] PAGE 2 10,73,248/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF THE OPENING BALANCE AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED DURING T HE YEAR BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITT ED IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, CASH BOOK AND THE DETAI LS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SUCH AS LAND HOLDING OF THE APP ELLANT AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, DETAILS OF CROP SOWN AND THE YIELD THEREOF TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS ME NTIONED IN HIS ORDER. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COMMITTED GROSS ERROR OF LAW AND FACT IN COMING TO HIS CONCLUSION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIALS AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND RELIED ON AN SURMISES AND CONJECTURES I N UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,73,248/ - ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN T HE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK RIGHT FROM 17.01.2009 TO 18.03.2009 TOTALING TO RS.10,73,248/-. ACCORDING T O ASSESSEE, SUCH DEPOSITS ARE FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHEREAS ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTA NTIATE HIS CLAIM. FROM THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME VIS --VIS CASH DEPOSITS, IT WAS FOUND BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE FIRST AND LAST QUA RTER OF THE YEAR WHEREAS CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK IS FROM JANU ARY 2009 ITA NO.1092/MUM/13 A.Y. 09-10 [SANJIV BIPIN BAROT V S.DCIT] PAGE 3 TO MARCH 2009. THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE THAT SU CH CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF OPENING CASH BALANCE, AGRICULT URAL INCOME AND SURPLUS FROM CASH WITHDRAWN DURING THE YEAR FRO M THE BANK WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY ONE. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THE INCOM E FROM AGRICULTURE VIS--VIS CASH DEPOSITS AND ACCORDINGLY , ADDITION IN QUESTION WAS MADE AND WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY CIT(A ). 2.1 BEFORE US, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ABOUT 40 ACRES OF IRRIGATED LAND HAVING PLANTS THEREON. ONCE, AGRICULTURAL LAND IS IRRIGAT ED ONE, AMOUNTING TO THE TUNE OF RS.10 LACS IS POSSIBLE AS AGRICULTURE INCOME. IT IS A HORTICULTURAL INCOME AS EMERGING FR OM THE DETAILS OF THE LAND FILED IN PAPER BOOK. HAVING AC CEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE HOLDINGS OF THE ASSESS EE TO THE TUNE OF RS.10 LACS DEPOSIT OF THE SAME IS JUSTIFIED . 2.2 NOW COMING TO THE SECOND OBJECTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT WHY AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED ON DIFFERENT DATES. IT IS A PROBATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE RECEIVED TO AGR ICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE PURCHASER OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODU CES. SAME MAY BE DEPOSITED AS AND WHEN RECEIVED. IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME MAIN THING IS TO BE LOOKED INTO IS WHETHER THE AGRICULTURE HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE IS POTENTIA L ENOUGH TO GIVE YIELD OF SUCH AMOUNT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME OR NOT. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT RS.10 LACS FROM HIS UNDISPUTED AGRICULTURE HOLDING ITA NO.1092/MUM/13 A.Y. 09-10 [SANJIV BIPIN BAROT V S.DCIT] PAGE 4 AND SAME CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 3. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R MUMBAI: DATED 24/06/2016 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. %&%'( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. )- / CIT (A) 5.-./00'(, '( , %& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6./4567 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / , / % , '( , %&