Shri Nilesh Ramanbhai Patel,HUF, Dist.Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(2), Baroda

ITA 1741/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5931 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD D BENCH (BEFORE S/SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA.NO.1741/AHD/2008 ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005 NILESH RAMANBHAI PATEL (HUF) C/O. SHREE NAVDURGA TOBACCO CO. DASHRATH, DIST: BARODA 391 740. VS. ITO, WARD-2(2) BARODA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.J.SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI C.K.MISHRA O R D E R PER G.D. AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, BARODA DATED 04 .03.2008 FOR A.Y.2004- 2005 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL FILED ALONG WITH MEMOR ANDUM OF APPEAL WERE AMBIGUOUS AND THEREFORE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED REVISED GROUNDS OF WHICH READS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING AGRICULTURAL I NCOME AND PRODUCTION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCES ABOUT THE CULTIVATION OF THE LAND AT ADIRAN VILLAGE BY THE APPELLANT AND IN THE PROCESS DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF TOBACCO FROM THAT LAND. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE FACT AND EVIDENCE SHOWING CULTIVATION OF DANE LAND I.E. LAND TAKEN ON RENT AN D IN THE PROCESS REJECTED THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF TOBACCO FROM T HAT LAND. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE P RODUCE OF TOBACCO AT THE RATE OF 45 MAUNDS PER ACRE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY AN AGRICULTURIST AND CU LTIVATES TOBACCO ON HIS OWN LAND (LAND OWNED BY HIM INDIVIDUALLY AS WELL AS THE LAND OWNED BY HIM JOINTLY) ITA.NO.1741/AHD/2008 -2- AS WELL AS ON THE LAND TAKEN ON LEASE. THAT THE GR OSS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS ON THE SALE OF TOBACCO AND OTHER CASH CROPS WERE RS.9,49,7 71/- AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SUCH AGRICULTURAL OPERATION WAS RS.2,02 ,000/-. THUS, NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.7,47,771/- WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE YIELD OF THE TOBACC O AT 1800 KGS. PER HECTOR IN RESPECT OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER , IN RESPECT OF THE JOINT LAND AS WELL AS THE LEASE-HOLD LAND NO CROP WAS ACC EPTED. HE HAS STATED THAT AS PER THE PUBLICATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, THE YIELD OF TOBACCO PER HECTARE VARIES DEPENDS ON VARIETIES OF TOBACCO. HE POINTED OUT THAT IN RESPECT OF BIDI TOBACCO IT RANGES FROM RS.2,255/- PER KG TO RS.260 0/- PER KG PER HECTOR, WHILE IN RESPECT OF OTHER TOBACCO IT GOES AS HIGH A S RS.3500/- PER KG PER HECTOR. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN NO ADEQUATE REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE FROM THE LAND JOI NTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LAND TAKEN ON LEASE. THE ASSESSEE H AS GIVEN NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE LAND TAKEN ON LEASE. HE THEREFOR E SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DELET ED. HE ALTERNATIVELY STATED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS VERY LOW AND EVEN IF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS TO BE ESTIM ATED, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A REASONABLE ESTIMATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTE D THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.2,44,626/- ONLY AS AGAINST THE AGRICULTURAL INCO ME OF RS.7,47,771/- DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT A REA SONABLE ESTIMATE MAY BE MADE BY THE ITAT. 4. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS FAIRLY WORKED OUT THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2, 44,626/-. THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL MAY BE DISMIS SED. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED MATERIALS PLACED BEFORE US. SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE COMPLETE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURE ACTIVITI ES, THE PRODUCE SOLD AND THE ITA.NO.1741/AHD/2008 -3- EXPENDITURE INCURRED, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE CLAIM O F THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, AT THE S AME TIME, ESTIMATE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALS O VERY LOW. IN OUR OPINION, IT WOULD MEET ENDS OF THE JUSTICE, IF THE AGRICULTU RAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED AT RS.5,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE INCOME OF RS.7,47,771/- DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THUS, THE ADDI TION IS SUSTAINED AT RS.2,47,771/-. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 TH JUNE, 2010. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGARWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT PLACE : AHMEDABAD DATE : 18-06-2010 VK* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD