Amit N. Prajapati, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1, Bharuch

ITA 287/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0510 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOVIND SINGHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R DIKSHIT
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 208; 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD A BENCH (BEFORE S/SHRI R.V.EASWAR, VICE-PRESIDENT AND M.V. NAYAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.287/AHD/2008 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005] SHRI AMIT N. PRAJAPATI C/O. C.I.SHAH & CO. N.R.SANKALP APARTMENT MARI MATA LANE, PALACE ROAD BARODA 390 001. VS. ITO, WARD-1 BHARUCH. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.R.DIKSHIT REVENUE BY : SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL O R D E R PER R.V.EASWAR, VICE-PRESIDENT : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL. HE CARRIES ON BUSINESS AND ALSO DERIVES INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. WE ARE CONC ERNED WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. 2. THERE ARE ONLY TWO GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL. THE F IRST GROUND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF THE FOLLOWING CREDITS: I) SMT.INDUMATIBEN SHASTRI RS.1,50,000/- II) SMT.SEEMA N. PRAJAPATI RS.3,00,000/- III) SMT.SHOBANABEN GURJAR RS.1,60,000/- IV) PURSHOTTAMDAS PRAJAPATI RS.1,00,000/-. THE FIRST THREE CREDITS APPEARED IN THE BOOKS OF SU RYA ESTATE AND DEVELOPERS WHICH IS THE PROPRIETORY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE LAST CREDIT APPEARED IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HI MSELF. THESE CREDITS WERE REQUIRED TO BE PROVED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM ALL THE PA RTIES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF PURSHOTTAMDAS PRAJAPATI THE INCOME T AX FILE NO. WAS NOT PAGE - 2 ITA NO.287/AHD/2008 -2- MENTIONED AND IN THE CASE OF SHOBANABEN THE ADDRESS ALSO WAS NOT MENTIONED. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE TWO CRE DITORS WERE NOT ASSESSED TO TAX AND THEREFORE THE PANS. COULD NOT BE GIVEN. IN AN ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THE CREDITS, THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE CREDITORS UND ER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT TO INDUMATIBEN SHASTRI, SEEMA PRAJAPATI AND PURSHOTTAM DAS PRAJAPATI. THESE PERSONS DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS BUT SENT WRITTEN REPLIES. THE AO CONSIDERED THE REPLIES INS UFFICIENT TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITS AND THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS AND CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THEM FOR EXAMINATION. THE ASSE SSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO CONTACT THEM ON THE GROUND THAT THEY WERE AWAY T O ATTEMPT WEDDING OF THEIR RELATIVES, BUT SUBMITTED THAT IN THEIR REPLY THE CR EDITORS HAVE GIVEN THE BANK STATEMENTS, PASS-BOOKS ETC. AND THUS THEIR IDENTIT Y AND CAPACITY WERE PROVED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE LAND HOLDINGS OF SEEMA PRAJAPATI AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHOBANABEN ALONG WITH HER BANK STATEMENT. THE AO ON A PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT NOTED THAT THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE CREDITORS ISSUED CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE. AFTER EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY EACH OF THE CREDITORS, HE H ELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE THREE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 VI Z. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, AND THE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE C REDITORS. HE THEREFORE ADDED THE TOTAL CREDITS OF RS.7,10,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T.ACT. 3. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IF THE CASH DEPO SITS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE ISSUE OF THE CHEQUES BY THE CREDITORS WERE EXCL UDED, THE AVERAGE BANK BALANCE OF THE CREDITORS DID NOT SUGGEST ANY MAJOR SOURCE OF INCOME FROM WHICH THEY COULD HAVE ADVANCED MONIES TO THE ASSES SEE. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYE E CHEQUES BY ITSELF DID NOT FULFIL THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 68. IN THIS BEH ALF HE REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. PRECISION FIN ANCE PVT. LTD., 208 ITR 465 AND THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN NIZAM WOOD AGENCY V S. CIT., 193 ITR 318. HE THUS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. PAGE - 3 ITA NO.287/AHD/2008 -3- 4. IN THE FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES WERE REITERATED. IT WAS F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MERE EXISTENCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS JUST BEFORE THEY ISSUED CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONCLUSIVE EV IDENCE OF THE CLAIM THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEES MONIES ONL Y. HE POINTED OUT FROM PAGE 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK THAT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF INDUMATIBEN THERE WERE SEVERAL DEPOSITS, BOTH CASH AND CHEQUES, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND OVER A CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF C HEQUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, INDICATING THAT SHE WAS HAVING HER OWN SO URCES OF INCOME AND WAS CAPABLE OF ADVANCING THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. TH E SAME WAS THE CASE WITH THE SHOBANABEN WHOSE BANK ACCOUNT COPIES ARE PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ISSUE OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE BY ITSELF MAY NOT PROVE ALL THE INGREDIENT OF SECTION 68, CONSIDERING THE OTHER EVIDENCE ON RECORD INDICATING THE SOURCE OF THE CRE DITORS AS SEEN FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT AND THEIR CONFIRMATION BEFORE THE AO, THE C REDITS MUST BE HELD TO BE GENUINE. RELIANCE IN THIS BEHALF WAS PLACED ON TH E JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS, 256 ITR 360. WITH REGARD TO THE NONE APPEARANCE OF THE CREDITORS BEFORE THE AO UNDER SECTION 131, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN CIT VS. U.M.SHAH, PROPRIETOR, SHRENIK TRADING CO., 90 ITR 3 96 WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR THE DEFAULT OF TH E CREDITORS IF SUMMONS HAD BEEN PROPERLY SERVED ON THEM. IN SUPPORT OF THE G ENUINENESS OF THE CREDITS IN THE NAMES OF INDUMATIBEN AND SHOBANABEN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE US IN THE FORM OF COPIES OF THE CHEQUES ISSU ED TO THEM BY WAY OF REPAYMENT, CERTIFICATE FROM THE SHROFF STATING THAT THE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ETC. AND A PRIOR WAS MADE UN DER RULE 29 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES THAT THEY BE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED UPON. PAGE - 4 ITA NO.287/AHD/2008 -4- 5. THE LEARNED SR-DR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS INCUMBEN T UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ALSO PROVE THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS TO ADVA NCE THE MONEY AS HELD BY THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN 181 TAXMAN 175. HE POINTED OUT THAT NONE OF THE CREDITORS WAS ASSESSED TO TAX AND ONLY ONE OF THEM HAD APPLIED FOR ALLOTMENT OF PAN NUMBER. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TH E CREDITORS DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO UNDER SECTION 131 AND THE ASSESSEE CO ULD ALSO NOT ENFORCE THEIR ATTENDANCE AND THUS THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTI ONS. THE LEARNED SR-DR ALSO PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE FACT THAT CASH DEPOSI TS IN AMOUNTS WHICH WERE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE AMOUNTS ADVANCED BY THE CRE DITORS WERE FOUND IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THEY ISSUED CHEQUE S IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LEAR NED SR-DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE AHMEDABAD BENCH ORDERS REPORTED IN M.B.STOCK HO LDING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, 84 ITD 542 AND ITO VS. PARISHRAM QUARRY WORKS , 6 SOT 78. AS REGARDS THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS, CITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, HE SUBMI TTED THAT BY THIS JUDGMENT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT MERELY REFUSED TO ADMIT THE APPE AL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND REFUSED TO FRAME THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LA W AND IT WAS NOT A DECISION UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON MERITS. HE THUS PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS. AS REGARDS THE CREDITS IN THE NAMES OF INDUMATIBEN SHA STRI AND SHOBANABEN GUJJAR, WE ARE INCLINED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AD DUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE CREDITS WERE REPAID SUBSEQUENTLY WHIC H INDICATES THAT THEY WERE GENUINE. HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WILL HA VE TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THESE TWO CREDITS TO THE FILE OF THE AO WHO SHALL EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE AND TAKE A FRESH DECISION REGA RDING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 68 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. NEEDLESS T O ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE ANY DECISION IS TAKEN. PAGE - 5 ITA NO.287/AHD/2008 -5- 7. AS REGARDS THE CREDITS STANDING IN THE NAME OF S EEMA PRAJAPATI (RS.3,00,000), THE COPIES OF HER BANK ACCOUNT ARE P LACED AT PAGES 8 TO 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE FIND THAT THERE A CASH DEPOSIT OF R S.1,75,000/- ON 15-3-2004, RS.80,000/- ON 20-3-2004 AND RS.30,000/- ON 26-3-20 04 TAKING THE BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT TO RS.3,04,885/- FROM WHICH A CHEQUE FO R RS.3,00,000/- WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29-3-2004. THE DEPOSITS BEFORE 15-3-2004 ARE INSIGNIFICANT AND MERELY REPRESENT INTEREST CREDITED TO THE ACCOU NT AND VERY SMALL AMOUNTS IN CHEQUES. HOWEVER, FROM AUGUST, 2004 I.E. AFTER THE ISSUE OF CHEQUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN MARCH, THERE ARE SEVERAL CASH DE POSITS IN THE RANGE OF RS.30,000/- TO RS.45,000/- AND CHEQUES FOR ODD AMO UNTS OF RS.52,519/- AND RS.39,782/- WERE ISSUED BY THE CREDITOR IN SEPTEMBE R, 2004, THOUGH THE PERSONS TO WHOM OR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THESE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED ARE NOT KNOWN. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS ON THREE DAYS PRIOR TO 29-3- 2004 REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEES MONIES. IT IS PRIMARILY FOR SEEMABEN TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS AND IN FACT SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO HER, BUT SHE DID NOT RESPOND. AS HELD BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE JUDGMENTS CITED SUPRA, THE BLAME CANNOT BE ATTACHED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FAILURE OF THE CRE DITOR TO APPEAR IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE AO THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING OF SEEMABEN IN WHICH THE AO HAS NOTICED SOM E CONTRADICTIONS. SHE HELD A PAN CARD WHICH SHOWED THAT SHE WAS ONLY 19 Y EARS OF AGE AT THE TIME MATERIAL TIME. THESE ARE FACTS WHICH MAY EXCITE SU SPICION BUT BY THEMSELVES CANNOT PROVE THAT THE CREDIT WAS NOT GENUINE OR THA T CREDITOR DID NOT HAVE CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE MONEY. TAKING AN OVERALL V IEW OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT THE CASH DEPOSI TS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR CAME FROM THE ASSESSEES RESOURCES. WE A CCORDINGLY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/-. PAGE - 6 ITA NO.287/AHD/2008 -6- 8. AS REGARDS THE CREDIT OF RS.1,00,000/- IN THE NA ME OF PURSHOTTAMDAS PRAJAPATI, HE HELD BANK ACCOUNT WITH DENA BANK AT B HARUCH. HE ISSUED A CHEQUE FOR RS.1,00,000/- ON 4-4-2003 IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT OF AN E QUAL AMOUNT ON 3-4-2003 TAKING THE BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT TO RS.1,35,787/- FROM WHICH THE CHEQUE FOR RS.1,00,000/- WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT EVEN IN THE YEARS 1999, 2000 AND 2001 THERE WERE CASH DEPOS ITS IN THE ACCOUNT SUCH AS RS.20,000/- ON 20-5-1999, RS.25,000/- ON 14-6-2000 AND RS.1,10,000/- ON 26- 7-2001. THE DEPOSITS BY CHEQUES ARE ALSO SUBSTANTI AL, FOR EXAMPLE RS.35,000/- ON 24-5-2000, RS.75,000/- ON 15-6-2001, RS.5,00,000 /- ON 12-2-2002 ETC. EVEN SUBSEQUENT TO 4-4-2003 THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL C HEQUE DEPOSITS, FOR EXAMPLE, RS.69,860/- ON 20-5-2003, RS.20,855/- AND RS.19,730/- ON 16-12- 2004, RS.47,409/- ON 27-7-2005 AND SO ON. ON 9-1-2 008 THE CREDITOR HAS DEPOSITED THREE CHEQUES OF RS.53,180/- EACH. A PERU SAL OF THE ENTIRE BANK ACCOUNT OF PURSHOTTAMDAS PRAJAPATI SHOWS THAT HE IS MAN OF MEANS AND IS CAPABLE OF ADVANCING THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS OWN SOURCES OF INCOME. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID TH AT THE CASH DEPOSITS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO THE ASSES SEE CAME OUT OF THE ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME SO AS TO ATTRACT SECT ION 68. THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. THUS, THE FI RST GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. THE SECOND GROUND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ADDITI ON OF RS.2,05,430/- AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,75,430/- IN HIS RETURN FOR RATE PURPOSES. THE GROSS RECEIPTS WERE RS.4,83,500/- AGAINST WHICH EXPENSES OF RS.1,08,070/- WERE DEDUCTED AND NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN IN T HE RETURN. THE DETAILS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO AS ALSO BILLS IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE OF SEEDS AND SALES. THE MAJOR CROP CLAIME D TO HAVE BEEN CULTIVATED WAS SUGAR CANE. ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO PRO OF TO SUPPORT THE PURCHASE BILLS FOR SEEDS AND ALSO ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAL E OR PURCHASE BILLS PRODUCED PAGE - 7 ITA NO.287/AHD/2008 -7- WERE SELF-MADE, THE AO TREATED THE ENTIRE AGRICULTU RAL INCOME OF RS.3,75,430/- AS THE ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. ON APPEAL, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE CIT(A) THAT MOST OF THE LANDS WERE IN THE JO INT NAMES OF ASSESSEE AND NATVERLAL HARJIVANDAS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM EACH SURVEY NUMBER SEPARATELY. IN THIS VIEW HE HELD THAT THE AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES MAY BE ESTIMATED AT 40% OF THE RECEIPTS. ON THIS BASIS HE HELD THAT ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,70,000/- CAN BE CONSIDERED A S NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE BALANCE OF RS.2,05,430/- MAY BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 10. IN THE FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US IT IS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 2007, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN TAKEN AT RS. 1,57,664/- AND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-2004 AND 2004-2005 IT WAS TAK EN AT RS.2,75,580/- AND RS.1,96,300/- RESPECTIVELY UNDER SECTION 143(1). I T WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE YEAR 2006-2007 THE AO HAS NOT ADOPTED THE REASONING OF THE CIT(A) BASED ON JOINT OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THOUGH HE PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING S WERE GIVEN AND THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT IN THE BILLS BY THE AO WERE NOT SO SERI OUS AS TO WARRANT THE REJECTION OF THE MAJOR PART OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED SR-DR BESIDES RELYING ON THE ORDERS OF THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES, POINTED OUT THAT MERE HOLDING OF LAND WAS NOT CONCL USIVE OF THE AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS. 11. HAVING CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATTER, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPUTED THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL H OLDINGS BUT HAS ONLY HELD THAT THE EXPENSES FOR EARNING THE INCOME WILL BE 40% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. IF THAT IS SO, THE EXPENSES WILL AMOUNT TO RS.1,93,400/- OUT O F THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.4,83,500/-. THUS, THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME W ILL BE RS.2,90,100/-. IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE CALCULATION MADE BY THE CIT(A). PAGE - 8 ITA NO.287/AHD/2008 -8- THEREFORE INSTEAD OF RS.1,70,000/- TO BE TAKEN AS N ET AGRICULTURAL INCOME, RS.2,90,100/- IS DIRECTED TO BE TAKEN AS NET AGRICU LTURAL INCOME. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3,75,430/ - DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RS.2,90,100/- ESTIMATED BY US AS AGRICULTURAL I NCOME, WHICH COMES TO RS.85,330/- IS DIRECTED TO BE TAKEN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE GROUND IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 6 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (M.V. NAYAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R.V.EASWAR) VICE-PRESIDENT PLACE : AHMEDABAD DATE : 06-11-2009 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : ASSESSEE 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD