Shri Nilesh Solanki S/o Shri Kamal Kumar Solanki, Indore V. ITO-1(2), Indore

ITA 668/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0979 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MOURYA
• Keywords: Business income; Reason to believe
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

SMC NILESH SOLANKI ITA NO.668 OF 2019 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 668/IND/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 SHRI NILESH SOLANKI, INDORE PAN ANSPS5578G :: APPELLANT VS ITO-1(2), INDORE :: RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAJESH MEHTA , CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.P. MOURYA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 03 . 0 3 .20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03 .0 6 .20 20 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, INDORE DATED 07.03.2019 PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. AO ERRED IN PASSING ORDER OF ASSESSMEN T, AGAINST THE LAW AND THE CIT APPEALS ALSO ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE SAID ASSESSMENT WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW AND AG AINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS LIABLE T O BE QUASHED BECAUSE NO ADDITION WAS MADE TOWARDS THE REASON TO BELIEVE. 2. THAT THE LD. AO ERRED IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.2,15,800/- AS BUSINESS INCOME AND CIT (APPEALS) ALSO ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF ONLY RS.1,00,800/- ERRED IN DISA LLOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,15,000/- WHICH IS AGAIN ST THE LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE HENCE NEEDS TO BE DEL ETED. SMC NILESH SOLANKI ITA NO.668 OF 2019 2 3. THAT THE LD. AO ERRED IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND IN MAKING ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE LAW AND AGAINST THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, HENCE ASSESSMENT NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR WI THDRAW ANY OF THE GROUND, EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES OF RS. 4,15,800/- EARNED FROM 21 BIGHA AGRICULTURAL LAND. HOWEVER, TH E AO WORKED OUT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.2,00,000/- STATIN G THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED RS.10,15,500/- AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES FOR THE A.Y.2014-15 AGAINST 85 BIGHA AGR ICULTURAL LAND. THUS, THE AO ESTIMATED RS. 2,00,000/- FROM FOR 21 B IGHA AGRICULTURAL LAND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 UNDER CONSIDERATION AND REST OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME I .E. RS.2,15,800/- WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE LD. CIT(A) . 3. LD. CIT(A) DISCUSSED AND CONSIDERED THE FACTS AN D SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FIL ED COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE LAND HOLDING AND THE LAND WISE CROP GROWING PATTERN HAD ALSO BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) HEL D THAT THE ESTIMATION OF THE AO IS FOUND UNREASONABLE AND NOT BASED ON SMC NILESH SOLANKI ITA NO.668 OF 2019 3 MATERIAL FACTS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) DEL ETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- MORE AND RESTRICTED THE A DDITION TO RS.1,15,000/- TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM BUSI NESS. STILL AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE LAND HOLDING AND THE LAND WISE CROP GROWING PATTERN HAD ALSO BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . FURTHER, COPY OF KHASRA KHATONI WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE TH E AO. THUS, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,15,800/- IS REASONA BLE AND NO ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON CONJECTURE AND SU RMISES. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE OR DERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. I FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HIMSELF NOTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE LAND HOL DING AND THE LAND WISE CROP GROWING PATTERN HAD ALSO BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. I ALSO FIND THAT THE AO WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH COULD SUGGES T THAT THE ADDITION RELATED TO BUSINESS INCOME. LD. CIT(A) ALS O NOTED THAT SMC NILESH SOLANKI ITA NO.668 OF 2019 4 ESTIMATION OF THE AO IS FOUND UNREASONABLE AND NOT BASED ON MATERIAL FACTS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE V IEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION IN FULL . I ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE BALANCE ADDITION I.E. R S.1,15,000/-. 7. IN RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.06.2 020. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 03 .06.2020 PATEL/PS COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/PR.CIT(A)/PR.CIT/DR, INDORE