Khodabhai K. Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 503/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5647 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MAHESH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. N. PAHUJA, AM) ITA NO.503/AHD/2008 A. Y.: 2004-05 KHODABHAI K. PATEL, HUF 2A/TIRTHNAGAR SOCIETY III, SOLA ROAD, GHATLODIA, AHMEDABAD VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6 (2), AHMEDABAD PA NO. AABHP 8469 D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI K. M. MAHESH, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- XI, AHMEDABAD DATE D 21-11-2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XI AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN FRAMING AN APPELLATE ORDER FOR A. Y. 2004-05 ON 21.11.2007 FOR THE APPEAL; FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF TH4E I. T. ACT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XI AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- AS NON AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SER VICE OF NOTICE. THE A/D CARD DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IS AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, HEARD IN THE ABSENCE OF THE A SSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE FIN DINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.503/AHD/2008 KHODABHAI K. PATEL HUF VS ITO 6(2), AHMEDABAD 2 4. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL APPEARS TO BE GENERAL IN NATURE AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHALL HAVE TO BE DECIDED ON MERIT. T HIS GROUND IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 5. ON GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CHALL ENGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS .60,000/- AS NON AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. RETURN O F INCOME WAS FILED AT RS. 2,98,730/- OUT OF WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN IN A SUM OF RS.2,27,723/-. THE AO FOUND FROM THE DETAILS OF AGR ICULTURAL ACTIVITIES THAT EXPENSES INCURRED ON THESE ACTIVITIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE SAME AS WEL L AS THE EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS HOWEVER, SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHEREAS NO EXPENSE OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES HAS BEEN DEBITED . THE AO THEREFORE, NOTED THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE EARNED WIT HOUT INCURRING EXPENSES. THE AO ACCORDINGLY REDUCED THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME BY RS.60,000/- TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FOR WANT OF PROPER CHECK ETC. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(A) THAT AS PER NORMAL CUSTOMS FOR PRODUCING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, ALL ACTIVITIES WERE GIVEN TO HIS RELATIVE SHRI RAMMESHBHAI SOMNATH PATE L, DISTRICT MEHSANA WHO HAS INCURRED ALL EXPENSES RELATING TO AGRICULTU RAL ACTIVITIES AND HAD TAKEN AWAY ONE THIRD SHARE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME. THEREFORE, ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER , CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. NONE APPEARED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPE AL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS ON RECORD WHICH IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISS ION SAME SUBMISSIONS ITA NO.503/AHD/2008 KHODABHAI K. PATEL HUF VS ITO 6(2), AHMEDABAD 3 HAVE BEEN REITERATED AND COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF S HRI RAMESHBHAI SOMNATH PATEL IS FILED DATED 03-07-2010. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR WE DO NOT FIND IT TO BE A FIT CASE FOR INTERFERENCE. NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE AUTH ORITIES IF EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY SHRI RAMESHBHAI SOMNATH PATEL FOR EARNING OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 03 -07-2010 OF SHRI RAMESHBHAI SOMNATH PATEL IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS OF NO RELEVANCE NOW. IN THE ABSENCE OF AFFIDAVIT ON RECOR D AND JUSTIFICATION FOR FILING THE SAME AT THE SECOND APPELLATE STAGE, THE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATIO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO JUSTIFY INCURRING OF THE EXPENDITURE BY SOMEBODY ELSE ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT COULD BE REASONABLY BELIEVED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OUT OF INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DECLARED TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9-07-2010. SD/- SD/- (A. N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 9-07-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- ITA NO.503/AHD/2008 KHODABHAI K. PATEL HUF VS ITO 6(2), AHMEDABAD 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD