RANI AGARWAL, MUMBAI V. ACIT 12(2), MUMBAI

ITA 613/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3122 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA VIJAY
• Assessee Lawyers: EKTA JOSHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 613/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) SMT. RANI AGARWAL, 93-B, MAKER TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI 400 005 APPELLANT VS. ACIT 12(2), 1 ST FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI 400 200 RESPONDENT PAN: AAIPA7243B /BY APPELLANT : MS. EKTA JOSHI, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT : SHRI CHANDRA VIJAY, D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 23.09.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.09.2015 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-10, MUMBAI, DA TED 13.12.2012 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON FOLLOWING GROUND: ITA NO.613/MUM/13 A.Y. 07-08 [SMT. RANI AGARWAL VS. ACIT] PAGE 2 1. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.6,15,000/- AND THE REASONS ASSIGNED FOR DOING SO, WERE WHOLLY WRON G, IRRELEVANT, AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND INCOME TAX AND RULES AND THUS THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE SAME BE TREAT ED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 2. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DISCLOSED INCOME F ROM SALARY, CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES. DURING PR EVIOUS YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 10,12,250/-. THE STAND OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT A MOUNT COMPRISES OF PROCEEDS RECEIVED ON SALE OF STANDING CROPS ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY IT AND ALSO AMOUNTS REAL IZED ON SALE OF VEGETABLE AND FLOWERS GROWN IN ITS FARM HOUSE. THE BREAK- UP IN THIS REGARD AS CLAIMED TO BE AS UNDER: SALE PROCEEDS FROM STANDING CROPS RS.6,15,000/- SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IN FARM HOUSE RS.4,48,790/- LESS: SALARY AND WAGES RS. 36,692/- COST OF SEEDS RS.14,838/- RS.51,540/- RS.3,97,250/- TOTAL RS.10,12,250/- ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT NO EVIDENCE FOR EXI STENCE OF STANDING CROP FROM WHICH THE SALE PROCEEDS COULD BE FURNISHED. FURTHER, AS REGARDS SALE PROCEEDS FROM FRUITS AND V EGETABLES, ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER EVIDENCE ITA NO.613/MUM/13 A.Y. 07-08 [SMT. RANI AGARWAL VS. ACIT] PAGE 3 PRODUCED. IN ABSENCE OF NECESSARY BILL AND DOCUMEN TS, ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME AS NON- AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES AND BR OUGHT THE SAME U/S.68 OF INCOME TAX ACT. MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF T O THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE US, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING TH E AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.6,15,000/ -. LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT DISPUTED THE LAN D HOLDING OF ASSESSEE. SO, CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJEC TING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE ONLY IN ABSENCE OF BILLS OF AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE. SO, ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. SAME NEEDS TO BE DELETE D. ON OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD, REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT DISPUTED TH E LAND HOLDING OF ASSESSEES FARM HOUSE OF 17 HECTARES AT ALIBAUG. THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION AT THE END OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS TO ASK FOR RELEVANT REVENUE RECORD I.E.7/12 EXTRACT WHICH INDICATE THE LAND HOLDING ALONG WITH CROP AND OTHER TREES ON THE SAME. IT ALSO REVEALS SOURCE OF IRRIGATION. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT ABOVE SAID FARM WAS UNIRRIGATED ONE. A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE TREES AND CROPS ON THE LAND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. MERE ABSENCE OF THE PROPER BILLS O F SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR R EJECTING THE ITA NO.613/MUM/13 A.Y. 07-08 [SMT. RANI AGARWAL VS. ACIT] PAGE 4 AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM ADMITTED AGRICULTURAL HOLD ING OF 17 ACRES. THIS AD HOC APPROACH OF ASSESSING OFFICER R EJECTING CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INCOM E IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CLAIM OF AGRICU LTURAL INCOME AS CLAIMED FROM LAND HOLDING OF 17 HECTARES IS JUST IFIED. IN VIEW OF THUS, ADDITION IN QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO B E DELETED. 5. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( ASHWANI TANEJA ) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R MUMBAI: DATED 30/09/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE !# / ASSESSEE $ %&%'( ) / CONCERNED CIT * )+ / CIT (A) ,-./00'(1 '( 1 2 %& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 3/4567 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / #8 1 9: ;% 1 '( 12 %&<