IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENC H (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NO: 2013/AHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) BHUPENDRA CHHOTABHAI PATEL,635, KASBA, B.S. PATEL SCHOOL, UVARSAD, GANDHINAGAR-382422 V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, GANDHINAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: BFPPP3239D APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAKAR SHARMA, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K. GOYAL, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 10 -12-20 19 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 -12-2019 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), GANDHINGAR, AHMEDABAD DATED 21.17.2017 PERT AINING TO A.Y. 2014-15 AND FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN: ITA NO. 2013 /AHD/2017 . A.Y. 2014-15 2 1. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN TRE ATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO BE AS UNDISCLOSED AND UNEXPLAINED INCOME WITHOUT ANY JUST IFIABLE REASONS. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT WAS ONL Y RS. 15,88,005/- AND NOT RS. 25,57,315/- CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES OF RS. 9,69,310/- FROM THE GR OSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 25,57,315/- WHICH WERE NOT IN DISPUTE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW :N DIR ECTING TO TAX RS. 1!,22,351/- TO BE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED AND UNEXPLAINED INCOME E VEN THOUGH HE AGREED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER ERRED IN RECORDING HIS FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, LD. CIT (A) ERRE D ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN COMPUTING ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED AND UNEXPLAINED AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 11,22,351/- ARITHMETICALLY WHICH OTHERWISE WORKS OU T TO RS. 2,90,882/- ONLY. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CALLED FOR DETAILS AND NECESSARY PROOF AND DETAILS OF PROO F OF AGRICULTURE INCOME AND AGRICULTURE EXPENSES AS ALSO OWNERSHIP PROOF OF LAN D, CROPS GROWN ETC DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN RESPONSE T HERETO, AO HAS STATED THAT APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED PART DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS SUCH AS NOTE ON NATURE OF INCOME AND ACTIVITY, COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME AGRIC ULTURE LAND OWNERSHIP SPECIMEN/ABSTRACT 7 ONLY BUT DID NOT FURNISH ABSTRA CT 12, 8/A AND 6 IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURE LAND AS WELL AS DETAILS AND SUPPORTI NG DOCUMENTS SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ACCE PTED BY THE AO IN ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF OF AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY, CROP GROWN, EXPE NSES RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND AGRICULTURE INCOME. AO HAS NOTED THAT THE ELECTRICITY BILL PRODUCED WAS IN THE PREMISES OF SHRI MAHESHKUMAR R. PATEL, V RIDAVAN FAR, DEHGAM, WHEREAS THE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND SITUATED AT UVARSAD IN THE NAME OF SHRUI BHUPENDRAKUMAR C. PATEL. THEREFORE, AO CONTEN DED THAT ELECTRICITY BILLS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS OF THE ASSESSEE'S LAND, SIT UATED AT UVARSAD, AO HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT INSPITE OF GRANTING AMPLE OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT, HE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF RS.19,48,073/- ITA NO. 2013 /AHD/2017 . A.Y. 2014-15 3 CLAIMED AS AGRICULTURE INCOME. APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PROVE AGRICULTURE INCOME AND AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY, ALSO IN RESPECT OF ADDITI ON OF AGRICULTURE LAND AND IMPROVEMENT IN FACILITY OF RISE IN AGRICULTURE INCO ME IN COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS TWO YEARS' AGRICULTURE INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AO HE LD RS.19,48,073/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT DERIVED FROM UN DISCLOSED SOURCES IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS AND SUPPORTING PROOF OF ALL THE DETAILS CALLED FOR AND MADE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 3. AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PARTLY A LLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. NOW AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE HAS COME BEFORE US AND FILE D SECOND STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE IS A FAMER AND DRIVING INCOME FROM A GRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND INTEREST INCOME AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE APPELLANT COULD NO T SUBMIT BILLS OF SEED PURCHASED BY HIM AND DETAILS OF LABOURER ENGAGED IN THE FARMING ACTIVITIES. BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTE D THE FOLLOWING DETAILS SUCH AS COPIES OF REVENUE RECORD OF THE LAND HOLDING , C OPIES OF SALE PRODUCED PROCEEDS AND IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT T RADER WHO PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE WAS ALSO BEENEXAMINED BY THE A. O. AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED REGISTRATION BOOK OF TWO TRACTORS WHICH ARE OWNED B Y HIM AS WELL AS CERTIFICATE FROM THE TALATI WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ORDER TO STRENGTHEN CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FI LED COPIES OF ELECTRICITY BILLS. ITA NO. 2013 /AHD/2017 . A.Y. 2014-15 4 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, APPELL ANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WAS CARRIED OUT MAINLY WITH THE HELP OF TWO PERSONS NAMELY FROM MR. VIJAY ZALA AND MR. VIKRAM ZALA FOR CARRYING OUT FURTHER CULTIVATION AND ALSO FILED THEIR IDENTITY AND ADDRE SS PROOF. 7. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, APPELLANT HAS GIVEN ALL THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURE INCOME FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, WE COULD SEE THAT AGRICULTURE INCOME IS RS. 15,88,005/- AND OTHER INC OME IS RS. 24,000/- RENTAL INCOME 211750/- AND INCOME FROM BANK INTEREST IS R S. 3,03,005/-. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, WE CANNOT DOUBT CONTENTIONS THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11- 12- 2019 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (MAHAVIR PRASA D) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 11/12/2019 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD