Shri Nalinbhai Haribhai Patel, Sabarkantha V. The Income Tax Officer, S.K. Ward-3, Himatnagar

ITA 312/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 31220514 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.:312/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD. [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR, AM ] I.T.A. NO.312/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 NALINBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL AT-HANSALPUR, PO- VIRPUR, TAL-HIMATNAGAR, DIST. SABARKANTHA ....................APPELLANT PAN AOZPP5638L VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SK WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR. . .RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: S. N. DIVETIA.........FOR THE APPELLANT B. L. SHARMA.......... F OR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING: 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER: 13 TH NOV, 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 24 TH DECEMBER, 2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT. HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF THE LD. AO HOLDING THAT THE AGRI. EXPENSES SHOUL D BE 40% OF THE AGRI. I.T.A. NO.:312/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 3 INCOME AND THUS HE HAS ALLOWED RS.7,71,897/- + RS.2 ,00,000/- AS AN AGRI. EXPENSES AND THUS THE BALANCE OF RS.2,89,630/ - IS CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE LEGAL DECISI ON QUOTED BY THE APPELLANT AND RELIED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF THE AGRI. EXPENSES WHICH IS NOT LEGAL AND CONVINCING. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS FOR NOT GIVING THE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES OF AGRICULTURE PAID BY THE AP PELLANTS FATHER SHRI HARIBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL THROUGH CHEQUE WHICH IS RE ALLY AN AGRI. EXPENSES JOINTLY BORNE BY THE FATHER OF THE APPELLA NT. 3. THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, EDIT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE T IME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDIC ATED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN HOLDING 40% TO BE ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE IN EARNING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THA T IS THE ONLY ISSUE AGITATED BEFORE ME. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECOMPUTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE, BY ESTIMATING 40% AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON EARNING T HE AGRICULTURAL SALE PROCEEDS. THE BALANCE AMOUNT, AFTER DEDUCTIONS AGRI CULTURAL INCOME SO ESTIMATED AND MORTGAGE LOAN FROM HANSALPUR GRAMIN S EVA SAHKARI MANDI LTD. FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITIO N OF RS.2,89,630/- SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IN THE L IGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. I.T.A. NO.:312/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. I FIND THAT THE ESTIMATION OF MINIMUM AGRICULTUR AL EXPENSES TO EARN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS PURELY AN ESTIMATE. IN THE P RESENT CASE, THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE, ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL P RODUCE, ARE RS.12,86,495/- AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THIS ASPECT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNALS DECISION IN THE CASE OF N ARENDRASINGH A. JADEJA HUF VS. ITO (ITA NO.3951/AHD/2007; ORDER DATED 22.3.201 0) WHEREIN EXPENSES OF 30% HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE ACCEPTABLE. IN THIS VIEW O F THE MATTER, I CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO ACCEPT 30% OF THE EXPENSES AS REASON ABLE. ACCORDINGLY, I GRANT A FURTHER RELIEF OF RS.1,28,649/- TO THE ASSE SSEE. TO THIS EXTENT, INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES STANDS R EDUCED. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 6. NO OTHER ISSUE WAS REALLY PRESSED BEFORE ME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN T HE ABOVE TERMS. PRONOUNCED TODAY ON 13 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- PRAMOD KU MAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 13 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPON DENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD