Nilofer Mehboob Mujawar, Solapur V. Inocme-tax Officer,

ITA 324/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1036 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.323 TO 326/PN/2014 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 TO 2005-06 NILOFER MEHBOOB MUJAWAR, FLAT NO.4, GREENLAND APARTMENT, SOUTH SADAR BAZAR, SOLAPUR 413002 MAHARASHTRA PAN NO.AOIPM9211F . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, WARD-1(2), SOLAPUR . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : NONE / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE 4 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 26-11-2013 OF THE CIT(A )-III, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL THESE APPE ALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS C OMMON ORDER. / DATE OF HEARING :14.09.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:23.09.2015 2 ITA NOS.323 TO 326/PN/2014 2. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27-01-2015 . SINCE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON THAT DAY THE CASES WERE ADJOURNED TO 28-01-2015. SINCE NOBODY APPEARED ON 28 -01- 2015 THE CASES WERE ADJOURNED TO 05-05-2015 BY ISSUI NG A FRESH NOTICE. AGAIN ON 05-05-2015 NOBODY APPEARED FOR W HICH THE CASES WERE ADJOURNED TO 22-06-2015. ON 22-06-20 15 THESE CASES WERE ADJOURNED TO 14-09-2015 AT THE REQ UEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON 14-09-2015 WH EN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED NONE APPEARED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY PETITION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE APPEALS WERE FILED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. TREATMENT OF RS.2,15,609/- FOR A.Y. 2002-03, RS.16,09,004/- FOR A.Y. 2003-04, RS.11,04,949/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND RS.4,19,718/- FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AS PART OF NON AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE CIT(A) IS THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR ALL THESE YEARS. 4. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.324/PN/2014 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AS THE LEAD CASE. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME O F RS.3,45,000/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.23,38,400/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ASK ED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SO DECLARED. THE ASSESSEE FILED SALE PATTIES IN SUPPORT OF THE SALES. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GROWN AND SOLD MAJOR CR OPS SUCH AS LEMON, MANGOES, GRAPES ETC. IN PART OF THE LAND AND IN THE 3 ITA NOS.323 TO 326/PN/2014 REST OF THE LAND HE WAS GROWING JAWAR. THE AO FOUND FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE LAND HELD AND THE CROPS GROWN ARE AS UNDER : SR. NO. GAT NO. AREA CROPS TAKEN HECTARES ARES 1 138/1/1 4 04 LEMON & MANGO 2 138/A/2/1 4 04 GRAPES 3 179/1 2 91 JAWAR 4 177 1 21 JAWAR 5 176.2 3 46 JAWAR 15 66 4.1 ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MAINTAINED BOOK S OF ACCOUNT HOWEVER THE AO NOTED THAT THOSE WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE GAVE THE DETAILS OF SALES AND EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE AS UNDER : DETAILS OF SALES : SR.NO. NAME OF THE COMMODITY QTY.IN KILOS AMOUNT 1 LEMON 165724 RS.20,26,048/ - 2 GRAPES 104560 RS.12,84,732/ - 3 MANGOES 315 BAGS RS.78,210 DETAILS OF EXPENSES : SR.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1 AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES MEDICINE, PIPES ETC. RS.1,05,020/ - 2 BAMBOO PURCHASE FOR GRAPES RS.40,000/ - 3 BOARD PASTE PURCHASE RS.60,000/ - 4 CATTLE EXPENSES RS.36,900/ - 5 FERTILIZERS (SHENKHAT) RS.2,52,000/ - 6 GRAPE CUTTING WAGES RS.79,000/ - 7 LEMON CUTTING WAGES RS.82,862/ - 8 LIGHT BILL RS.13,980/ - 9 PACKING EXPENSES RS.1,56,840/ - 10 PACKING PATTI RS.3,000/ - 11 RADDI PURCHASE RS.4,000/ - 12 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE RS.5,240/ - 13 SORTING AND CHHATANI EXPENSES RS.32,000/ - 14 TELEPHONE BILL RS.19,850/ - 15 TRACTORS EXPENSES RS.8,000/ - 16 WAGES & SALARIES RS.1,51,900/ - TOTAL RS.10,50,591/ - 4 ITA NOS.323 TO 326/PN/2014 5. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED XEROX COPIES OF SALE PATTIES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ISSUED BY DIFFERENT COMMISSION AGENTS. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.133(6) TO 6 PERSONS OUT OF WHICH 4 PERSONS TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE ALLEGED TO HAVE MADE SALE S OF LEMON, MANGOES AND GRAPES ETC. AS COMMISSION AGENT ATTENDED AND PRODUCED COUNTERFOILS OF SALE PATTIES. HOWEV ER, THE OTHER TWO PERSONS NAMELY M/S. IQBAL GAFFAR SAHIB COMPANY AND M/S. MOHD. ZUBAIR, MOHD. RAFIQUE & COMPANY DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICE U/S.133(6). 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AO DISBELIEVED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SO DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE SALES OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AN D WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE EXPENSES. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED PURCHASE OF PESTICIDES AND OTHER FERTILIZERS WHICH A RE REQUIRED FOR SUCH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE BY PRODUCING SELF-M ADE VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY TRANSPORTA TION EXPENSES. HE THEREFORE HELD THAT NEITHER THE SALES ARE GENUINE NOR THE EXPENSES REQUIRED FOR SUCH AGRICULTURAL OPERATIO N. HE THEREFORE CONSIDERED SALES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,72,915/- AS GENUINE SALES AND REJECTED THE BALANCE SALES OF RS.30,16,07 6/-. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.30,16,076/- AS INCOME FROM NON-AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. 7. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) RESTRICTED SUCH ADDITION TO RS.16,09,004/- AS AGAINST RS.30,16,076/- ADDED BY THE AO IN A VERY EXHAUSTIVE ORDER CONSIDERING THE EXTENT OF AGRICU LTURAL LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE VARIOUS CROPS GROWN. 5 ITA NOS.323 TO 326/PN/2014 8. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE HAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICT ING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.14,07,072/- AND TREATING B ALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.16,09,004/- AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ENTIRE INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED AS AGRICULTURAL ONE AS DISCLOSED BY YOUR PETITIONER. 2. THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE HAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.2,20,000/- AS THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF PLOT SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMEN T. 3. YOUR PETITIONER CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AND/OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS DETAILS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND RE PORT FROM THE AO. IN THE SAID REMAND REPORT THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THE YEARS PRECEDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. FURTHER, THE AO IN THE REMAND REPOR T HAS ALSO POINTED OUT VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES AND GROSS INCONSISTENCIES IN THE YIELD OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERING THE AREA UNDER CULTIVATION AS W ELL AS QUANTIFICATION OF INCOME THERE FROM. FURTHER, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE SUPPORTING PROOF PRODUCED BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURA L INCOME IS ALSO NOT FREE FROM CONTROVERSY. HE HAS ALSO GIVE N A FINDING THAT THE SOCALLED COMMISSION AGENTS FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO AND CONFIRM THE TRANSAC TIONS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. THEREFORE, THE SURROUNDING 6 ITA NOS.323 TO 326/PN/2014 CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT AND TRUE . CONSIDERING THE EXTENT OF LAND HOLDING, CROPPING PATTERN AND POSSIBLE YIELD OF VARIOUS PRODUCTS SUCH AS MANGOES, LEMONS , GRAPES ETC. THE LD.CIT(A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR CAN BE ESTIMATED AT RS.7,29,396/-. THE REASONED FINDING GIVEN BY T HE CIT(A) AT PARA 5 TO 5.3.5 OF HIS ORDER IN OUR OPINION DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY. WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF T HE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND DISMISS TH E GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. WE FURTHER FIND SIMILARLY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2002-03 HAS DETERMINED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.12,74,038/-, RS.18,90,122/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND RS.13,57,513/- FOR A.Y. 2005-06. THE REASONED FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) FOR THE ABOVE YEARS DO NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 4 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23-09-2015. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; # DATED : 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2015. LRH'K 7 ITA NOS.323 TO 326/PN/2014 ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ( ) S / THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4. ( S / THE CIT-III, PUNE 5. 6. + ., ., IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , + //TRUE C + //TRUE COPY// 2 . / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ., IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE