SHRI RAJEEV SHUKLA, Bhopal V. THE ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

ITA 503/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5610 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GIRISH AGRAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 503 & 504/IND/2015 RAJIV SHUKLA 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE .., ..!', #$ # !% BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 503 & 504/IND/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 &2011-12 RAJEEV SHUKLA BHOPAL PAN ACIPS 9732P :: APPELLANT VS ACIT 3(1) INDORE :: RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL ASSESSEE BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED ! ' #$ DATE OF HEARING 18.10.2016 %&'( #$ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.11.2016 * O R D E R PER SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-2, BHOPAL, DATED 26.5.2015. ITA NOS. 503 & 504/IND/2015 RAJIV SHUKLA 2 2. THE ONLY GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,60,000/- BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 15 LACS FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND RS. 20 LACS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE SOURCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING CULTIVATION LAND HOLDING OF 137. 115 ACRES (A.Y.2010-11) AND 141.067 ACRES (A.Y.2011-12) OU T OF WHICH THE INCOME COMES TO ABOUT RS.10,940/- (A.Y. 20 10- 11) AND RS.14,178/- (A.Y. 2011-12) PER ACRE. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT RS.10,940/- (A.Y. 2010-1 1) AND RS.14,178/- (A.Y. 2011-12) PER ACRE IS ON HIGHER SID E. THEREFORE, HE ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES INCOME AT RS.9,780/- PER ACRE AND ASSESSED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 4,15,086/- (A.Y. 2010-11) AND RS.13,79,000/- (A.Y. 2011-12) AND NOT ACCEPTED THE DECLARED INCOME. ITA NOS. 503 & 504/IND/2015 RAJIV SHUKLA 3 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING OU T AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS IN KRISHI UPAJ MANDI AMOUNTING TO RS.7668847 /- MOREOVER, IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07 THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.11,521/- PER ACRE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN SIMILAR AREA, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 25,000/- PER ACRE IN THE CASE OF MUKESH SHARMA. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED PARTICULARS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING ALONG WITH DETAILS OF CROPS GR OWN. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ARGU ED THAT IN THIS BACKGROUND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS DECLARING AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON ESTIMATE BAS IS AND THE ASSESEES INCOME WAS ESTIMATED BY ITAT IN THE ITA NOS. 503 & 504/IND/2015 RAJIV SHUKLA 4 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 AND RELYING UPON THE SAME, THE TRIBUNAL HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE FIND THAT THE ISSU E IN CONTROVERSY IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE IN DORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NOS. 564 TO 570/IND/2 010 WHEREIN THE INDORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES INCOME AT RS.11,521/- PER ACRE. THE REL EVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER :- 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRAKASH SHUK LA (ITA NO. 564/IND/2010) THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY TREATING THE SAME AS TAX ABLE. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THOUGH AGRICULTURAL INCOM E OF RS. 6 LACS HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE 5 ASSESSEE BUT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED BY HIM. THE SHOWED AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE TOWARDS HIGHER SIDE. IN ITS RETURN THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED AGRICULT URAL INCOME OF RS. 6 LACS FROM 57.76 ACRES OF FULLY IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL LA ND. BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE STAND OF T HE ASSESSEE IS THAT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE DULY CARRIED OUT BY TH E ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME WERE DISCARDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FUR THER CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO AN AGRICULTURAL FAMILY AND IN T HE PAST FROM SEVERAL YEARS THE ASSESSEE FAMILY IS HAVING AGRICULTURAL IN COME AND THE SAME WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURNS OF RESPECTIVE YEARS. IT WAS FU RTHER CLAIMED THAT IN ITA NOS. 503 & 504/IND/2015 RAJIV SHUKLA 5 PAST ASSESSMENT YEARS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALL A LONG HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF SUCH CLAIM IS SUM MARISED AS UNDER :- THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBM ISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FURNISHED BEFORE ME ALONG WITH SUPP ORTING EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANT WAS IN POSSESSION OF AGRICU LTURAL LAND WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY SUBMITTING THE MANDI SALE RE CEIPT OF KRISHI UPAJ MANDI. COPY OF KHASRA NAKALS OF THE AGRICULTURA L LAND AND THE KOLI PATTA AGREEMENTS. ALL THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED AND THE GENUINENESS HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. IT IS NOT THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS INCOME SHOWN F ROM AGRICULTURE BUT HE HAS THE SAID SOURCE OF INCOME IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO IN WHICH SAID INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. THUS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. DURING THE YEAR THE APPEAL HAS MAD E SALES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AT RS.6,07,783/- AND THE NET I NCOME SHOWN IS RS.6,00,000/- ON TOTAL LAND AT 52.75 ACRES OUT O F WHICH 7.65 ACRES IS SELF OWNED AND 45.11 IS THE LAND TAKEN ON LEASE. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE DETAILS FILED THAT THE LAND IS IRR IGATED AND TWO CROPS ARE GROWN ON THEREON. AS REGARDS EXPENSES IT WAS CONTENDED THAT MAJORITY OF THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN IN CURRED IN KIND BY WAY OF CROPS/GRAINS BUT THE APPELLANT HAS N OT FURNISHED DETAILS REGARDING EXPENSES INCURRED ON SUCH AGRICUL TURAL ACTIVITY. FURTHER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPE LLANT HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS SHOWN ON ESTIMATES ONLY. AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT 7 FURNISHED DETAILS AND SUPPORTING VOUCHERS FOR EXPENSES INCURRED ALONG WITH COMPLETE DETAILS FOR THE SALE PROCEEDS, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AGRICULTU RAL INCOME CAN ONLY BE ESTIMATED ON REASONABLE BASIS. IT IS PERTIN ENT TO NOTE THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT DURING T HE LAST FIVE YEARS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN PREVI OUS YEAR 2003-04 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2004-05 AGRICULTURAL INCOM E TO THE EXTENT OFRS. 3,20,000/- WAS DISCLOSED BY THE APPELL ANT FROM 42.47 ITA NOS. 503 & 504/IND/2015 RAJIV SHUKLA 6 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF WHICH 7.65 ACRES WAS OWNED BY HIM AND 34.82 WAS TAKEN ON LEASE. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME S HOWN WAS RS. 7,500/- PER ACRE. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETE D U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SINCE THEN THERE IS A GAP OF 2 TO 3 YEARS AND THE YIELD OF CROPS AS WELL AS PRICES OF AGRICUL TURAL PROCEEDS HAVE RISEN CONSIDERABLY. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME HAS INCREASED SINCE THEN AND, THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE AGRICULTURAL INCOME @ RS . 8,000/- PER ACRE PER ANNUM. AS THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR HA S CULTIVATED 52.75 LAND HENCE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME ESTIMATED @ RS. 8,000/- PER ACRE WHICH COMES TO RS. 4,22,000/-. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,78,000/- (RS. 6,00,000 RS. 4,22,000) WILL B E TREATED AS THE APPELLANTS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND WILL BE T AXED ACCORDINGLY. WE ARE ALSO REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE CONCLUDING PA RT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. SMITA BINOD (ITA N O. 88/IND/2010) DATED 28TH MARCH, 2011 :- THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.3.2011 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, CAREF ULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DETAILED CHART OF PRODUCTION AND SALE OF VARIOUS PRODUCE LIK E WHEAT, CHANA, SOYA, PLACED ON RECORD DULY INDICATING THE M ONTH OF PRODUCTION AND ALSO DATE OF SALE, RATE AT WHICH THE PRODUCE WAS SOOD. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO GIVEN DETAILED BREAK UP OF THE VARIOUS EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR PRODUCING 8 THESE CROPS WHICH IN TITAL AMOUNTED TO RS. 1,99,500/-. THUS, THE TOTAL N BET INCOME OF RS. 6,21,270/- WAS SHOWN IN RESPECT OF LAND OF 18.8 6 ACRES IN RATANPUR AREA, BHOPAL, YIELDING AVERAGE RATE OF RS. 33,000/- PER ACRE. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ESTIMATED RS. 15,000/- PER ACRE. KEEPING IN VIEW TH E DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NARRATED BY THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER W HICH HAS NOT ITA NOS. 503 & 504/IND/2015 RAJIV SHUKLA 7 BEEN CONTROVERTED, IT WOULD BE MOST REASONABLE TO E STIMATE THE INCOME AT RS. 22,000/- PER ACRE OF LAND FOR COMPUTI NG THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESP ECT TO VARIOUS CROPS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPU TED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY TAKING THE INCOME OF RS.22,0 00/- PER ACRE OF LAND. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 4. IF THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE ANALYSED, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS NOT DISPUTED GROWING OF CROPS ON THE TOTAL LAND AT 52.7 5 ACRES (7.65 ACRES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND 45.11 ACRES TAKEN ON LEAS E). THE LEARNED APPELLATE COMMISSIONER HAS ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME PER ACRE AT RS. 8,000/- PER ACRE PER ANNUM. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER SUCH ESTIMATION IS FAIR AND REASONABLE ? 9 WITHOUT COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION, THE OPINION OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CA SE OF SHRI MUKESH SHARMA (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATE D AT RS. 20,000/- PER ACRE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED SUCH ESTIMAT ION AT RS. 22,000/- PER ACRE IN THE CASE OF SMT. SMITA BINOD (SUPRA). I F THESE ESTIMATIONS ARE KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION WITH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEALS, WE FIND THAT FOR 45.11 ACRES (TAKEN ON LEASE) THE ASSESSEE HAS P AID LEASE RENT, THEREFORE, THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME MAY BE LESSE R. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN HAS CLAIMED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PER ACRE A RE RS. 11,521/- FROM THE IRRIGATED LAND, IN OUR VIEW, WHICH IS QUITE AND REASONABLE, THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW TH E AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AT THE RATE OF RS. 11,521/- PER ACRE. TH EREFORE, THE STAND OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS MODIFIED TO THIS EXTENT ONLY. 5. SINCE THE IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN REMA INING APPEALS, THEREFORE, OUR AFORESAID DECISION WILL BE APPLICABL E TO THESE APPEALS ALSO ON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS. ITA NOS. 503 & 504/IND/2015 RAJIV SHUKLA 8 6. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234D OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISION, THE SAME W ILL BE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF IN THE AF ORESAID MANNER 7. WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AT THE RATE OF RS. 11,521/- PER ACRE. 8. SO FAR AS THE GROUND RELATING TO INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE SAM E IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PAR TLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( ..!') (..) #$ (O.P.MEENA) (D.T.GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER (') / DATED : 21 ST NOVEM BER, 2016. DN/ ITA NOS. 503 & 504/IND/2015 RAJIV SHUKLA 9