Shri Dilip Shantilal Patel, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(1), Surat

ITA 2649/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5963 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: P M JAGASHETH
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

ITA.2649-08 A.Y.2005-06 SHRI DILIP SHANTILAL PATEL. 1 IN THE INCOME_TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.K. SHARMA AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL SURAT CAMP ITA. NO.2649/AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005 -06 ) SHRI DILIP SHANTILAL PATEL, MOTA FALIA, ICHCHHAPORE, SURAT. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ACVPP 4105 E APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.M. JAGASHETH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI H.P. MEENA ( (( ( )/ )/)/ )/ ORDER PER SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.87,595/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGE D UNDISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD. C.I.T.(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING OF S TANDARD DEDUCTION OF RS.30,000/- ON SALARY INCOME. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOL D WITHDRAWAL. ITA.2649-08 A.Y.2005-06 SHRI DILIP SHANTILAL PATEL. 2 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN CON FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1, 25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED AGRICULTURE INCOME T REATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2. OUT OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO.1 AND 2. THEREFORE, THEY ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION O F RS.25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT DETAILS OF VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON FURNISHING NEW HOUSE. BUT T HE TOTAL EXPENDITURE SHOWN BY HIM WAS RS.70,314/-ONLY FOR A FAMILY OF 5 ADULT PERSONS IN SURAT CITY. IT WAS CONSIDERED LOW LOOKING TO THE EARNING, INVESTMENT, STATUS AND AREA OF RESIDENCE AND NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS. NONE OF THE OTHER FAM ILY MEMBERS HAVE SHOWN ANY WITHDRAWAL FROM THEIR CAPITAL ACCOUNT EITHER FO R DAY TO DAY EXPENDITURE OR FOR NEW HOUSE CEREMONY. THE A.O. REQUIRED THESE DETAILS BUT NO RESPONSE WAS MADE TO THE QUERY MADE BY THE A.O. HE ACCORDINGLY E STIMATED EXPENDITURE AT RS.1,50,000/-PER YEAR MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.79,6 86/-. 4. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.25,000/-. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE AS NO DETAILS ARE FURNISHED EV EN BEFORE US AS TO THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE ON HOUSEHOLD AND EXPENDITURE INCURRED O N NEW HOUSE CEREMONY OR ON ITS FURNISHING AS ALLEGED BY THE A.O. THIS GROUN D OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 6. THE NEXT GROUND IS REGARDING ESTIMATION OF AGRIC ULTURE INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTICED T HAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.2,25,000/-. DURING THE IMM EDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. IN ITA.2649-08 A.Y.2005-06 SHRI DILIP SHANTILAL PATEL. 3 A.Y. 2004-05, TOTAL AGRICULTURE INCOME SHOWN WAS RS .52,610/-. LD. A.O. NOTICED THAT THE AGRICULTURE LAND WAS NOT FOUND IN THE BALA NCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT LAND OF 3 HECTOR WAS OWNED BY HUF IN ADDITION TO TWO OTHER CO- OWNERS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATI ON THAT OTHER TWO CO-OWNERS OF THE LAND ARE NOT USING THE INCOME THERE-FROM. ON ASKING THE DETAILS OF PRODUCE FROM THE LAND, NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS FURN ISHED. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS.1 LAC AND PR OPOSED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,000/- AS NON AGRICULTURE INCOME. 7. THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY REASON FOR INCREASE OF AGRICULTURE INC OME AT 4 TO 5 TIMES AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE DECLINE TO INTERFE RE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.C.I.T.(A) BECAUSE NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FURNIS HED AS TO HOW AGRICULTURE INCOME JUMPED FROM RS.52,000/- TO RS.2,25,000/-. NO DETAILS OF SALES, OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON AGRICUL TURE OPERATION, CROP OBTAINED ETC., WERE FURNISHED. AS A RESULT, WE CONFIRM THE O RDER OF THE LD. C.I.T.(A). ACCORDINGLY APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11/06/2010. SD/- SD/- (T. K. SHARMA) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER. AHMEDABAD. DATED:11/ 06/2010. ITA.2649-08 A.Y.2005-06 SHRI DILIP SHANTILAL PATEL. 4 S.A.PATKI. 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,AHMEDABAD.