Shri Ashwinkumar Govindbhai Dhaduk L/h of late Govindbhai N. Patel, Vadodara V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-5, Baroda

ITA 2870/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1110 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.2870/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 SHRI ASHWINKUMAR GOVINDBHAI DHADUK L/H. OF LATE SHRI GOVINDBHAI N. PATEL 408, BAKOR PATEL CHAMBERS BHUTADI ZAMPA VADODARA 390 001. PAN : AEKPP 4913 P VS DCIT, CIR.5 BARODA. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 20/06/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14/07/2016 $%/ O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-3, VADODARA DATED 13.7.205 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2009-10. 2. SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,94,880/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.17,23,382/-. THE LD.AO DIRECTED THE A SSESSEE TO PROVIDE PROOF FOR CLAIMING AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CONT ENDED THAT HE IS HAVING AGRICULTURE LAND WHERE MANGO-ORCHID IS BEING GROWN BY HIM. HE HAS 3500 MANGO-TREES. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SALE OF RS.21,7 6,881/- OF MANGOES. THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,52,749/- FOR THE PRODUCTION OF MANGOES, AND THEREFORE, HE CLAIMED NET AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS.17,23,382/-. ITA NO.2870/AHD/2015 2 THE LD.AO DISALLOWED 50% OF THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTUR E INCOME I.E. AT RS.8,61,692/-, AND HE ALSO DISALLOWED 50% OF THE EX PENSES. IN THIS WAY, HE MADE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.10,94,880/-. APPEAL TO T HE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. WITH THE HELP OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES, I HAVE GON E THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURE LAND. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT 3500 MANGO-TREES WERE STANDING ON THE AGRICULTURE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PRODUCTION OF MANGOES AT AVERAGE OF 30 KGS. PER TRE E, WHICH IN MY UNDERSTANDING NOT ON THE HIGHER SIDE. THE MAXIMUM R ATE FOR WHICH THE SALE WAS MADE IS OF RS.57.50 PER KG. IT WAS MADE ON 22. 4.2008. IN THE MONTHS OF JUNE AND JULY, MANGOES WERE SOLD AT THE RATE IN BET WEEN RS.12/- TO RS.20/- PER KG. MAXIMUM SALE WAS MADE ON 14 TH AND 15 TH JULY, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 10,022 AND 10,853 KGS. OF MANGOES AT THE RATE OF RS.12/- PER KG. I FIND THAT DENYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.REVE NUE AUTHORITIES HAVE MADE DISCUSSION ON PERIPHERAL ISSUES. THE AO UNNECESSAR ILY DEVOTED HIS ENERGY ON THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ALLEGED PURCHASER. TO MY MIND, HAD THE AO GOT A REPORT FROM AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF THE STATE GOVERNM ENT, WHO COULD POINT OUT EXPECTED STANDARD YIELD FROM THESE TREES, AND IF TH E ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AN EXCESS YIELD, THEN THE AO MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED IN DIS BELIEVING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE YIELD OF 30 KGS. MANGOES PER TREE CA NNOT BE TERMED FROM ANY STANDARD ON HIGHER SIDE. IF THERE IS A YIELD, IT M UST HAVE BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RURAL BACKGROUND, NOBODY CLAIM BI LLS OR MAINTAIN BOOKS IN THIS LINE OF ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, THE LD.REVENUE A UTHORITIES HAVE UNNECESSARILY GIVEN EXTRA-WEIGHTAGE TO THE FORMAT OF BILLS AND OT HER DETAILS. THEY SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE POINT OF VIEW OF AGRICULTURIST. THE LD.AO SHOULD HAVE PUT HIMSELF IN THE SHOES OF A FAR MER, AND THEN IMAGINE ITA NO.2870/AHD/2015 3 WHETHER BILL COULD BE MAINTAINED IN THE RURAL BACKG ROUND. WHEN FACTUM OF AGRICULTURE LAND ALONG WITH STANDING ORCHID IS THER E, THEN HE HAS TO ONLY PROCURE YIELD WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN GENERATED IN TH IS AREA FROM THE MANGO TREES. I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGRICU LTURE INCOME AND THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE UNNECESSARILY DISBELIEVED HIM, AND I ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. SO FAR AS CHARGING OF INTEREST OF CONCERNED, IT IS CONSEQUENTIAL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 TH JULY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 14/07/2016