Ranjit Kantilal Shah, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -2, Solapur

ITA 1399/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7594 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2019
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GOPAL R. ASWANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO.1399/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 RANJIT KANTILAL SHAH, KRUTI CONSTRUCTION, SHRIDHAR KRUPA COMPLEX, OPP. KILLA BAUGH, GOLD FINCH PETH, SOLAPUR, PUNE 413002. PAN : ACKPS2955G. . / APPELLANT V/S THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 2, SOLAPUR. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GOPAL R. ASWANI. REVENUE BY : SHRI SHASHANK DEOGADKAR. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 7, PUNE DATED 29.06 .2018 FOR A.Y. 2015-16. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PARTNER IN M/S. KRUTI INFRASTRUCTURES WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILD ING AND DEVELOPMENT AND IS ALSO HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ASSES SEE / DATE OF HEARING : 07.08.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.10.2019 2 ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2015-16 ON 19.03.2016 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.22,44,590/- AND AGRICU LTURAL INCOME OF RS.38,65,208/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT V IDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2017 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.31,04,840/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.30,04,958/-. AGGRIE VED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.29.06.2018 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-7/CIR- 2/10254/2017-18) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. A GGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL AND HAS R AISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE HONOURABLE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,60,250/- MADE BY THE LEARNED AO BY NOT ACCEPTI NG THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME A ND TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE APPELLANT HEREBY PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. THE CASE FILE REVEALS THAT THERE IS DELAY OF ONE DAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WHEREIN HE INTER -ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL OCCU RRED DUE TO BONAFIDE MISTAKE AND IT IS PURELY UNINTENTIONAL AND THEREFOR E PRAYED THAT THE DELAY OF ONE DAY BE CONDONED. LD.D.R. DID NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT TO THE PRAYER OF CONDONATION. 4. ON THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY OF APPEAL, I HAVE G ONE THROUGH THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HEARD TH E LD.A.R. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REASONS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT 3 THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL HAS BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINE D. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO NOTICE D THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND AT GUT NO.98/A/1/ 1 ADMEASURING 5H-06R AND ANOTHER LAND HAVING GUT NO.98/B2 ADMEASURING 1H-60R (16.46 ACRES), BOTH BEING SITUATED AT D ONGAON. ASSESSEE IS STATED TO HAVE GROWN CROPS LIKE SUGAR CANE , GRAPES, MANGO, JAWAR ETC, (THE DETAILS OF CULTIVATION ON THE SAID LANDS ARE TABULATED BY THE AO UNDER PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF SALES AFFECTED ALONG WITH DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE. ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SALES HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE FARM SITE ONLY AND FOR WHICH HE PRODUCED SELF-MADE BILLS AND VOUCHERS. TO VERIFY THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THE CORPS AND THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE, AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE DISTRICT SUPERIN TENDENT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, SOLAPUR. ON THE BASIS OF THE RESPONSE R ECEIVED FROM DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AO CONFIRMED THE PRODUCTIVITY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS STATED BY THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, NOTED THAT ASSESSEE H AD SHOWN EXCESS PRODUCTIVITY OF MANGOES WHICH IS NEARLY DOUBLE TH E AVERAGE IN SHOLAPUR IN F.Y. 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EX PLAIN THE DIFFERENCE TO WHICH ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSEE HAD CULTIVATED 400 TREES IN ONE ACRE OF LAND BUT DISTRICT SU PERINTENDENT AGRICULTURE OFFICER CONSIDERED ONLY 40 IN ONE ACRE. IT WA S THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE DATA SUPPLIED CANNOT BE COMPARED WIT H THE ACTUAL CULTIVATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. AO HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS OVER INFLATED 4 THE PRODUCTIVITY DETAILS BY AROUND 45%. HE THEREFORE DISA LLOWED THE EXTRA PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL OF 45% ABOVE THE AVERAGE COMPU TATION AS GIVEN BY DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT AGRICULTURE OFFICER AND RE-WORKE D THE EXCESS PRODUCTION OF MANGOES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,60, 250/- AND MADE ITS ADDITION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL. 6. BEFORE ME, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS MERELY RELIED ON THE REPORT OF DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT AGRICULTURE OFFICER. HE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT NO VERIFICATION OF THE NUMBER OF TREES IN TH E FIELD OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDERTAKEN BY THE AO. HE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PLANTED THE TREES IN A UNIQUE PATTERN OF 1 0/10 AND THEREBY INCREASED THE PRODUCTIVITY. LD.A.R. FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT AO HAS ONLY CONSIDERED THE REPORT OF THE DISTRICT SUPERINT ENDENT AGRICULTURE OFFICER SELECTIVELY AND TO SUPPORT HIS CONTEN TION, HE POINTED TO THE TABLE AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE PRODUCTIVITY OF GRAPES, POMEGRANATES, JAWAR ETC. CULTIVATE D BY THE ASSESSEE WERE MENTIONED AND THOUGH THE SAME WAS LOWER THAN THE PRODUCTIVITY STATED BY THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT AGRICU LTURE OFFICER BUT IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT WITHO UT BRINING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON ADHOC BASIS. HE THER EFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BE DELETED. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5 7. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND IS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PRODUCTION OF MANGOES. I FIND THAT AO HAS MEREL Y RELIED ON THE REPORT OF DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT AGRICULTURE OFFICER FOR WOR KING OUT THE EXCESS PRODUCTION. FURTHER EVEN ON THE BASIS OF TH E REPORT, HE HAS HELD THAT 40% INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY AS STATED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER IS ACCEPTED. I FIND THAT AO DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY VERIFICATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PERSONALLY OR BY THROUGH ANY OF HIS OFFICIALS TO VERIFY THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM MANGOES IN EARLIER YEARS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED BY THE AUTHORITIES IN EARLIER YEARS. I AM OF TH E VIEW THAT AO COULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE MEREL Y ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT AGRICULTURE OF FICER AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY IN HIS POSSESSION. I THEREFORE DIRECT THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THUS, THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019. SD/- ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 17 TH OCTOBER, 2019. YAMINI 6 #$%&'(' % / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A)-7, PUNE. PR. CIT-6, PUNE. '#$ %%&',) &', *+ / DR, ITAT, SMC PUNE; $-.// GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 012%3&4 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.