Shri Narottambhai Mohanlal Patel, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(3), Surat

ITA 1105/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5957 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMT JYOTI LAXMI
• Assessee Lawyers: MITESH M MOD I

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD, CAMP AT SURAT BEFORE: SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO.1105/AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005) SHRI. NAROTTAMBHAI MOHANLAL PATEL, 406, ARPAN APARTMENTS, NEAR TRIKAM NAGAR 2, SURAT. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURAGATE, SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI. MITESH M. MODI, AR FOR THE REVENUE: SMT. SMT. JYOTI LAXMI, SR. DR ORDER PER SHRI. D C AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS. (1) THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-VS , SURAT HAS ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITI ON OF RS.1,19,993/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED EXP ENDITURE BASED ON ESTIMATED AGRICULTURE EXPENSES AT 40% OF T OTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN OVERLOOKING AND IN SUMMARILY REJECTING THE DETAILED STATEMENT OF FACTS SUBMITTED ALONGWITH MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENC ES PLACED IN PAPER BOOK FILED AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, S ALES INVOICES, EXPENDITURE VOUCHERS, ETC. PRODUCED VIDE VARIOUS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHILE ACCEPTING THE LOP-SIDED AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT VERSION OF THE LEARNED AO AND H ENCE, NOT JUSTIFIED. 2 ITA NO.1105/AHD/2008 ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 2. THUS, THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE EXCESS EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON AG RICULTURAL OPERATIONS BY ESTIMATING AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES AT 40% OF THE T OTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THIS HAS RESULTED IN AN ADDITION OF RS.1,1 9,993/-. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED RE TURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON 19-07-2004 DECLARING INC OME OF RS.117996/- FROM DALALI AND INTEREST, ASSESSABLE UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN ADDITION TO THIS ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPT OF RS.8,19,945/-, EXPENSES AT RS.2,07,985/-, THUS, DECLARING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.6,11,960/-. TH IS INCOME WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE ACT. LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH SUFFICIENT EV IDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES. IT FURNISHED MONTHLY SUMMARY OF LABOUR C HARGES, AND OF FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES. IT DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS OF OTHER EXPENSES REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT LIKE IRRIGATION CHARGES, ELECTRICITY AND THE FUEL CHARGES, CONVEYANCE CHARGES, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES , PAYMENT TO WATCHMAN ETC. ACCORDINGLY, EXPENDITURE SO DECLARED WAS CONSIDERED INADEQUATE. SINCE EXACT DETAILS AND BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS ETC. WERE NOT SUBMITTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO THE E STIMATE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY ESTIMATING AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES AT 40% O F GROSS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPT, THEREBY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.119993/- TOWARDS TOTAL INCOME. 4. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONF IRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDE R: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APP ELLANT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT EVEN BEFORE ME, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, NOTHIN G SUBSTANTIAL TO 3 ITA NO.1105/AHD/2008 ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 THE ISSUE, HAS BEEN FURNISHED. A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIAL TO THE ISSUE, HAS BEEN FURNISHED. A CL AIM MADE IN THE RETURN HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY . SURELY AGRICULTURAL INCOME GENERATION REQUIRES INCURRING O F ADEQUATELY REASONABLE EXPENDITURE AND ESTIMATION AT 40% IS IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL ITATS ORDER NO.2190/AHD /2004 IN THE CASE OF DHIRUBHAI L. NAROLA. WHEN THE APPELLANT HA S NOT DISCUSSED ANY EXPENSES, THE LOGICAL DEDUCTION IS TH AT THE ESTIMATED EXPENSES MUST HAVE BEEN MET WITH UNDISCLOSED SOURCE S OF INCOME. I DO NOT FIND ANYTHING WRONG IN ASSESSING OFFICERS LOGIC ESPECIALLY WHEN NO DETAILS ARE FURNISHED EITHER BEFORE HIM OR THE UNDERSIGNED. 5. BEFORE US, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAI LS AND VOUCHERS TOWARDS VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES SUCH AS A FERTILIZERS , PESTICIDES, WATER EXPENSES, LABOUR EXPENSES. THEY WERE GENERALLY PAID TO ONE PERSON VIZ. PRAJAPATI AMBARAM CHAPUDAS WHO CAN BE EXAMINED. TH EREFORE, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 6. AGAINST THIS LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). SINCE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS , AN ESTIMATION HAS TO BE MADE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, 40% OF AGRICULTUR AL RECEIPTS AS EXPENDITURE IS VERY REASONABLE ESTIMATE AND IS THER EFORE UPHELD. 4 ITA NO.1105/AHD/2008 ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 8. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DATED 11 TH JUNE, 2010. SD/- SD/- (T.K. SHARMA) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED: 11/06/2010 ANKIT* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR/ DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD.