Smt. Kalpanaben Devendrasinh Gol, Gandhinagar V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhinagar

ITA 1598/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8432 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH JIWADE
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAVESH SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1598/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) SMT. KALPANABEN DEVENDRASINH GOL 107, DARBARVAS, VAVOL, GANDHINAGAR 382016 APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-2, GANDHINAGAR RESPONDENT PAN: AKGPG9493F /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI BHAVESH SHAH, A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI MAHESH JIWADE , SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 06.09.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.09.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 A RISES AGAINST THE CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABADS ORDER DATED 12.04.2 016, IN CASE NO. CIT(A)/GNR/31/2015-16, UPHOLDING UNEXPLAINED CASH CR EDITS ADDITION OF RS.4,62,300/-, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH SIDES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. RELEVANT FACTS ARE IN A VERY BRIEF COMPASS. THIS ASSESSEE/INDIVIDUAL IS A PARTNER IN M/S. SHIVAM CORPORATION ENGAGED IN CONST RUCTION BUSINESS. THE ITA NO. 1598/AHD/16 (SMT. KALPANABEN D. GOL VS. IT O) A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 - ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED HER CLAIM GROSS AGRICULTU RAL INCOME OF RS.4,62,300/- IN QUESTION AFTER EXPENDITURE INCURRED THEREIN OF R S.1,05,250/-. HE SOUGHT NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF AGRICU LTURAL INCOME CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE FILED THREE BILLS ISSUED B Y TWO PARTIES PRIMA FACIE INDICATING THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN TEMPERED WITH. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER ISSUED SECTION 133(6) PROCESS FOR VERIFI CATION OF THE ABOVE BILLS. THIS FOLLOWED SUMMONS AS WELL ISSUED U/S.131 OF THE ACT. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ABOVE TWO PARTIES APPEARED IN ORDER TO VERIFY T HE RELEVANT FIGURE INCORPORATE THEREIN. THE ASSESSEE RATHER SUBMITTED HER REPLY ON 03.03.2015 EXPRESSING HER INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE ABOVE TWO PARTIES. SHE HO WEVER REITERATED HERSELF TO BE A FARMER CULTIVATING AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HOWEVER TREATED THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.4,62,300/- AS UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDITS FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE AFTER NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT D ECLARED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL. THE CI T(A) CONFIRMS THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN LOWER APPELLATE ORDER. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES VEHEMENTLY REITER ATING THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS. THE ASSESSEES ONLY SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT I S THAT SHE OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 5ACRES. RELEVANT REVENUE RECORD ALS O IN PAGE 10 INDICATING THE LANDS IN QUESTION TO BE FIT FOR AGRICULTURE. THE FA CT HOWEVER REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE HER CASE OF HAV ING DERIVED THE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE STRONGLY ARGUES THAT SHE HAD ALSO NOT DECLARED ANY SUCH INCOME IN PRECED ING ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WELL. WE OBSERVE IN THESE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEES MERE INABILITY TO FILE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAVING SOLD HER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE DOES NOT FORM A VALID REASON TO REJECT HER EXPLANATION ALTOGETHER. IT IS NOT SOMET HING VERY COMMON THAT A FARMER GROWING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MAY NOT ALWAYS BE ABLE TO SATISFY ALL TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS IN SUPPORT TO HAVE DERIVED SUCH AN AGR ICULTURAL INCOME. WE FURTHER ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ABOVE LAND RECO RDS SUFFICIENTLY INDICATE THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN CULTIVATING POSITION OF AGRICULTU RAL LANDS. IT FURTHER ITA NO. 1598/AHD/16 (SMT. KALPANABEN D. GOL VS. IT O) A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 - TRANSPIRES THAT SHE HAD ALSO NOT CLAIMED ANY SUCH E XEMPT INCOME IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR (SUPRA). THIS LEADS US TO AN INFERE NCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM CREDIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME PERTAINING TO B OTH PRECEDING AND RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR IN THE INSTANT LITIGATION. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE ASSESSEE OWNS FIVE ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHICH COULD BE SUFFICIE NTLY BE ESTIMATED TO HAVE PRODUCED NET INCOME OF RS.20,000/- PER ACRE IN PREC EDING AS WELL AS IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR; TOTALING TO RS.2LACS. WE THEREFOR E PROCEED ON THIS ESTIMATION TO RESTRICT THE IMPUGNED UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ADDITIO N OF RS.4,62,300/- TO RS.2,62,300/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF RS.2LACS. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR INSTANT ADJUDICATION SHALL NOT FORM A PRECEDENT IN ASSESSEES AS WELL AS ANY OTHER CASE IN PRECEDING OR SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YE AR. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( MANISH BORAD ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 22/09/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0