Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2832 (ITAT-INDORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
02-06-2010
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
23-04-2010
Judgement Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC-I BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.240/IND/10 A.YS. 2005-06 SMT. ARSHEEN KHAN BHOPAL PAN- AMKPK 7107J . APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1) BHOPAL . RESPONDENT AND ITA NO.239/IND/10 A.YS. 2005-06 MRS. NOSHEEN KHAN BHOPAL PAN- ALHPK0193N . APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1) BHOPAL . RESPONDENT APPELLANTS BY : SHRI AMIT JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, SR. DR O R D E R THESE APPEALS ARE BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST DI FFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 23.12.2009 ON THE GROU ND THAT THE LD. FIRST 2 APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AT 35% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT AND THEREBY TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 40494/- AND RS.46,330/- RESPECTIVELY , BEING LESS EXPENDITURE, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTIMATE TH E INCOME. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, I HAVE HEARD SHRI AMIT JAIN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. APARNA KARAN, SR. DR. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASS ESSEE POSSESSES 8.55 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND A MECHANIZED FA RMING IS DONE ALONG WITH INDEPENDENT FARMING DONE BY THE PARENTS. IT WA S CLAIMED THAT PROOF OF LAND HOLDING, INVOICES OF SALE OF CROPS, KHASRA NAKAL WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME AT RS. 10,000/- PER ACRE WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ESTIMATION OF EXPENSES AT 35% OF GROSS RECEIPT WAS ALSO CHALLENGE D BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY CONTENDING THAT THE ESTIMATION IS QUITE JUSTIFIED, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS DEFEND ED. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. R EPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRST, I INTEND TO DISPOSE OF ITA NO. 240/IND/10, WHEREIN, B RIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING 8.55 ACRES OF LAND AND SHOWED GR OSS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,83,599/- BY CLAIMING THE EXPENSES OF RS.23,716/- WHICH ARE ABOUT 13% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE R ETURNED NET 3 AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.1,59,883/- WHICH IS ABOUT RS. 18,700/- PER ACRE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ESTIMATING THE INCOME AT RS.10,000/- PER ACRE ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.85,0 00/-. THE WHOLE DISPUTES RANGES BETWEEN THE ESTIMATION OF EXPENSES AT THE RATE OF 35% WHICH IS RS.64,260/- AGAINST THE EXPENSES OF RS.233 ,716/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.40,544 /- (WHICH WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES) BETWEEN THE INCOME SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SHE IS DOING MECHANIZED FARMING WI TH THE HELP OF HER PARENTS AND THE EXPENSES ARE REDUCED ONE. HOWEVER, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO CLEAR CUT FORMULA CAN BE DEVISED FOR EXPENSES AND ALSO WHEN TRUE ACCOUNTS ARE NOT MAINTA INED. EVEN OTHERWISE THE PRODUCTION AS WELL AS THE EXPENSES DE PEND UPON NATURE AND LOCATION OF LAND, AVAILABILITY OF MEANS OF IRRI GATION, MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY INVOLVED IN AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, AVAILAB ILITY OF LABOUR, SEEDS, MARKET, SITUATION OF LAND, MEANS FOR AGRICULTURAL O PERATIONS EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND OTHER GEOGR APHICAL CONDITIONS, ETC. THE TIMELY ARRIVAL OF MONSOON ALSO CONTRIBUTES TO MINIMIZING THE EXPENSES AND INCREASE IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. H OWEVER, NO CLEAR CUT FORMULA CAN BE DEVISED, THEREFORE, TO PUT AN END TO THE LITIGATION, THE ADDITION OF RS.40,494/- IS REDUCED TO RS.20,000/-, CONSEQUENTLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4 NOW I SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL IN ITA NO. 239/IND/10 WH EREIN THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE SIDES CONTEND ED THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO ITA NO. 240/IND/10. ON PERUSAL OF REC ORD AND AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN I TA NO.240/IND/10, THE ADDITION OF RS.46,330/- IS REDUCED TO RS.23,000 /-, AS THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALSO PARTLY ALLOWED. FINALLY, THESE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 2.6.2010. (JOGINDER SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2.6.2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, G UARD FILE *DBN/
