NIMISH R. KOTHARI (HUF), MUMBAI V. ITO 16(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2601/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62191 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2601/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) M/S. NIMISH R. KOTHARI (HUF), 63, OM DARIYA MAHAL, 80, NEPEAN SEA ROAD, MUMBAI -400 006 ...... APPELLANT VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER -2(2)-4, ROOM NO.542, 5TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD,, MUMBAI -400 020 ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AAAHK 3212 N APPELLANT BY: SHRI MAYUR MAKADIA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ATIQ AHMAD DATE OF HEARING: 09.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.04.2012 O R D E R R.S. PADVEKAR, JM : IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPU GNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-28, MUMBAI DATED 13.01.2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06. THE ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY IS THE ADDITION OF ` 1,56,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE I S A HUF. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 D ECLARING INCOME OF ` 46,094/- WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT W AS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE INCOME AND EXPENDITU RE ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 2,25,920/- AGAINST GROSS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS OF ` 3,11,525/-, CLAIMING THE SAME FROM THE SALE OF THE VEGETABLES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TH E EXPENSES OF ` 85,605/- TOWARDS CONVEYANCE EXPENSES, PURCHASE OF M ATERIAL, PESTICIDES, SALARY AND WAGES, PACKING CHARGES, PURC HASE OF UREA, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, TELEPHONE EXPENSES ETC. T HE A.O. ASKED THE ITA 2601/M/2011 M/S. NIMISH R. KOTHARI (HUF) 2 ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS AS WELL AS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT THE SUPPORTIN G RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES ARE NOT SUPPORTED WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES. THE A.O. ESTIMATED THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 70,000/- OUT OF ` 2,25,920/- AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED ` 1,56,000/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF REVENUE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT AS PER THE REVEN UE RECORD THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING MORE THAN 500 MANGO TREES,. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE SALES VOUCHERS WHICH WERE WRITTEN IN MARATHI LANGUAGE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLEADED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEA RS ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ON THIS ISSUE SUPPORTING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE COPIES OF THE LAND RECORD FROM WHICH IT WAS SEE N THAT PLANTS OF MANGO TREES WERE SOLD DURING THE YEAR IN ADDITION T O THE SALE OF VEGETABLES, PAPAYAS AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS DISBELIEVED BY GIVING THE REASO N THAT NO THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO SUPPORT THE SALE OF AGRICU LTURAL PRODUCE. I FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. A.YS. 2003-04 & 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AGRICULTURE REC EIPTS AS UNDER: I) GROSS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS FOR A.Y. 2003-04 ` 2,96,375/- II) GROSS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS FOR A.Y. 2004-05 ` 3,95,465/-. AS PER THE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BEFORE M E, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HUF AND HAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AT KOLA D. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE COPIES OF 7/12 ABSTRACT. THOUGH THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BUT AT THE SAME TIM E THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE A.O. ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN MY OP INION IF THE ITA 2601/M/2011 M/S. NIMISH R. KOTHARI (HUF) 3 ADDITION IS RESTRICT TO ` 56,000/- THAT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF OF ` 1,00,000/-. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 1 2 TH APRIL, 2012. SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 12 TH APRIL, 2012 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-28, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT -16, MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. SMC BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN