Shri Ambalal Chimanlal Patel, Ahmedabad V. Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2135/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2710 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D K PARIKH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI AMBALAL CHIMANLAL PATEL C/O KINTECH SYNERGY PVT. LTD. 8/9, SHIVALIK PLAZA, OPP. AMA AMBAVADI, AHMEDABD - 380015 PAN: AEHPP4248Q (APPELLANT) VS DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 2( 1 )(2) , AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI /MS. JAYA CHAUDHARY , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI D.K. PARIKH, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 19 - 02 - 2 019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 - 02 - 2 019 / ORDER P ER : AMARJ IT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2014 - 15 , ARI SES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 2, AHMEDABAD DATED 24 - 08 - 2 017 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 2135 / A HD/20 17 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15 I.T.A NO. 2135 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SHRI AMBALAL CHIMANLAL VS. DY. CIT 2 2. THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 , 49 , 830/ - MADE IN TA XABLE INCOME IN RESPECT OF EXPE N S ES INCURRED FOR EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME TREATING THE SAME EXPENDITURE TO BE NON - GENUINE. 3. THE FACT IN BR IEF THAT IS THAT DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT ASSE S SEE HAS PROVIDE D VOUCHER CLAIMING EXPENS ES OF RS. 2 , 49 , 830/ - INCURRING FOR EARING AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE AMOUNT OF R S. 24 , 29 , 202/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION . ON VERIFICATION OF THE VOUCHER OF EXPENDITURE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OB SEV ED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID EXPENDITURE FOR PURCHASE OF ORGANIC FERTILIZER AS UNDER : - 13/11/2013 RS.66870 FOR FERTILIZER 14/11/2015 RS,71200 FOR FERTILIZER 19/11/2013 RS .94300 FOR FERTILIZER 25/11/2013 RS,17460 TO CULTIVATE AFTER ANALYSIS OF ABOVE EXPENDITURE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL CROP OF THE ASSESSEE WAS R EADY TO SELL ON OR BEFORE 25 - 11 - 2013, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO U S E OF SUC H FERTIL IZER FOR THE CROP. THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLO WED THE AFORESAID EXPENSES OF R S. 2 , 49 , 830/ - AS NON - GENUINE AND ADDED TO THE TO T AL INCOME OF THE ASSESEE. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED APPEAL BEF O RE THE LD. CIT(A) . THE LD. CI T(A) HAS DISM ISSED THE APPEAL OF T H E ASS EES SEE. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD. CO UNSE L CONTENDED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS INCORRECTLY SUSTAINED THE AFORESAID ADDITION I.T.A NO. 2135 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SHRI AMBALAL CHIMANLAL VS. DY. CIT 3 STATING THAT ASSESSEE WA S AGREED FOR SUCH ADDITION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TOTAL AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES OF RS. 2 , 49 , 830/ - FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 26 , 79 , 032/ - RESULTING IN THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 24 , 2 9 , 202/ - AND BY DISALLOWING THE TOTA L FERTILIZER EXPENSES OF R S. 2 , 49 , 830/ - THE NET AGRICUL TURAL INCOME WILL BE INCREASED TO R S. 26 , 79 , 032/ - . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INCORRECTLY ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2 , 49 , 830/ - TO THE TATAL INCOME . ON THE OTHER HAND , LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES . 5.1 IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES OF RS. 2 , 4 9 , 830/ - WITHOUT ANY R EASON A ND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS RESPECT, WE OBSERVED THAT AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES ARE RELATED TO EARING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THEREFORE , THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED WITH THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 21 - 02 - 201 9 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 21 /02 /2019 I.T.A NO. 2135 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2014 - 15 PAGE NO SHRI AMBALAL CHIMANLAL VS. DY. CIT 4 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,