C.G. Uthappa, Mysore V. ITO, Mysore

ITA 786/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0343 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P K SRIHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: S VENKATESAN
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Valuation report
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE A BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE, K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.786(BNG.)/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) SHRI C.G.UTHAPPA, PROP: AKSHARA MUDRIKA, NO.301/1, LAKSHMIVILASA ROAD, DEVARAJ MOHALLA, MYSORE PAN NO.AAEPU9168P APPELLANT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(2), BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. VENKATESAN, CA REVENUE BY : DR. P.K.SRIHARI, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 04-04--2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-04-2016 O R D E R PER SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, AM; IN THIS APPEAL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE RE ADS AS UNDER; 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SOFARAS THEY ARE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUIT Y, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING A S UM OF RS.41,404/- BEING 20% OF THE EXPENDITURE DISALLOWED BY THE AO UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. 2 ITA NO.786(B)/15 2.1 THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS PURELY ON SUSPICION AN D SURMISE, ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS AND THEREFORE , THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE ALLOWED. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE LD. AO TO ADOPT THE COST OF THE SHED AT RS.4,500/- AS AGAINST THE SUM OF RSS.7,88,000/- ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. 3.1 THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS CONTRAR Y TO THE EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM AND THE INFERENCES DR AWN ARE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN AS MUCH AS, WITHOUT THEIR B EING ANY BUILDING, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DERIVED RENT AL INCOME, WHICH WAS OFFERED TO TAX AND THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PAYING POWER CHARGES ETC. TO RUN THE FACTORY INITIALLY BEF ORE IT WAS LET OUT AND DISALLOWING THE COST IS PURELY ON SUSPICION AND SURMISE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE DELE TED. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING A S UM OF RS.2,89,000/- OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES UNDER THE FAC TS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. 4.1 THE ADDITION MADE IS PURELY ON SUSPICION AND SURMISE, ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS AND THEREFORE , THE SAME REQUIRES TO BE ALLOWED. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT TO SEEK WAIVER WI TH THE HON BLE CCIT/DG, THE ASSESSEE DENIES HIMSELF LIABL E TO BE CHARGED TO INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, WHICH UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE ASSESSEES CASE AND THE LEVY DESERVES TO BE CANCELL ED. 3 ITA NO.786(B)/15 6. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGE D AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, YOUR ASSESSEE H UMBLY PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RE NDERED AND THE ASSESSEE MAY BE AWARDED COSTS IN PROSECUTIN G THE APPEAL AND ALSO ORDER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INSTITU TION FEES AS PART OF THE COSTS. 2. OUT OF THE ABOVE GROUND NO.1 & 6 ARE GENERAL AN D GROUND NO.5 IS CONSEQUENTIAL, NEEDING NO ADJUDICATION. 3. IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NO.2 & 2.1 LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WAS MADE FOR THE REASON THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT FULLY SUPPORTED B Y VOUCHERS. AS PER THE LD. AR, THE AO ERRONEOUSLY PRESUMED THAT PERSONAL ELEME NTS WERE INVOLVED IN SUCH EXPENDITURE. AS PER THE LD. AR THE EXPENDITURE WER E OF SUCH NATURE IN WHICH THERE COULD NO PERSONAL ELEMENT. HOWEVER, THE LD.C IT(A), AS PER THE LD. AR FAILED TO APPRECIATE THIS AND HAD CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF T HE AO. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. THE EXPENDITURE ON WHICH DISALLOWANCE OF 20% WAS MADE I S REPRODUCED HEREUNDER; 4 ITA NO.786(B)/15 A. LABOUR AND SALARY RS.1,60,800 B. POSTAGE AND FORWARDING EXPENSES RS. 3,210 C. REPAIS AND MAINTENANCE RS. 29,050 D. WATER CHARGES RS. 7,100 E. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE RS. 3,410 F. MISCELLANEOUS RS. 3,450 RS.2,07,020 THOUGH, THE AO DOES SAY THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NO T FULLY SUPPORTED, HE HAS NOT POINTED OUT EVEN A SINGLE SPECIFIC INSTANCE. H IS CONCLUSION THAT THERE WERE SOME PERSONAL ELEMENTS IN THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY SPECIFIC FINDINGS. WE FIND THE DISALLOWANCE TO HAVE BEEN MADE PURELY ON SURMISES. SUCH DISALLOWANCE STANDS DELETED. GRO UND NO.2 & 2.1 ARE ALLOWED. 5. IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NO.3 & 3.1 THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF A PL OT BEARING NO.265S, IN HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE DISTRICT. AS PER THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSEE HAD CORRECTLY COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS AS UNDER; A. SALE CONSIDERATION RS.24,00,000 LESS A COMMISSION RS. 48,000 B. INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION 788200*632/223 RS.22,33,822 CAPITAL GAINS RS. 1,18,178 5 ITA NO.786(B)/15 SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR WAS THAT THE AO DISBELIEVE D THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION COMPRISED IN THE SUM OF RS.7,88,200/-. AS PER THE LD. AR, THE AO SIMPLY WENT BY THE SALE DEED AND RE-COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS AS UNDER; 1. SALE CONSIDERATION RS.24,00,000 LESS: INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION A. RS.28,544*632/223 (PAID IN 1993) RS. 80,898 B. RS.22,37 (18307+740+3190) PAID IN 2009 (DIFFERENCE OF RS.46,851-28,544+STAMP DUTY + REGN. ) RS. 22,237 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.22,96,867 SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR WAS THAT THE PLOT WAS ACQU IRED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM KIADB ON 26-10-1990 FOR ESTABLISHING PRINTING PRESS . AS PER THE LD. AR, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACTORY SHED WAS BASED ON PLAN WHICH WAS SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY DY. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KIADB, ZONAL O FFICE, MYSORE ON 25-06- 1993. THE LD. AR STATED THAT A CHARTERED ENGINEER HAD CERTIFIED THE EXISTENCE OF BUILDING AND FIXED THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING AT RS. 2,71,000/- BASED ON HIS VISIT TO THE PREMISES ON 06-12-1996. THE LD. AR ALSO RELI ED ON COPIES OF COMMUNICATION TO ELECTRICITY AND POWER CONNECTION I N SUPPORT. THE LD. AR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE PREMISES WERE LET OUT FOR THRE E YEARS AND THE RENTAL INCOME WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN FILED. STRONG REL IANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON VALUATION REPORT DATED 04-01-2010 OF A BANK VALUER NAMED SHRI YOGISH RAO,D.V. AS PER THE LD. AR THE BANK HAD PROVIDED A LOAN TO THE PURCHASER BASED ON SUCH VALUATION REPORT. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE AO WAS NOT 6 ITA NO.786(B)/15 JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WA S NO BUILDING IN THE PLOT AND THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY SOLD THE LAND AS SUCH. AS PER THE LD. AR UNDUE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE REGISTERED SALE DEED AND HE COULD NOT FATHOM WHY THE SALE DEED DID NOT REFER TO THE BUILDING. THE L D.AR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE WAS A MEMBER OF A HUF WHICH WAS FILING RET URN. JUST BECAUSE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF HUF, AS PER THE LD. AR, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR REDUCING THE COST OF CONS TRUCTION FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED. THE LD . AR OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ALL THESE ARGUMENTS WERE TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE LD. CIT(A) EXCEPT FOR GIVING SMALL RELIEF FOR THE COST OF SHED , AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF HUF DID NOT ACCEPT ANY OF THE OTHER ARGUMENTS. AC CORDING TO THE LD. AR THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FELL IN ERROR WHEN THE ACTUAL COS T OF CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND CONSIDERED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALE DEED OF THE PLOT WHICH RESULTED IN THE CAPITAL GAINS DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING REGARDIN G ANY BUILDING THEREIN. HOWEVER, THE PURCHASE DEED OF THE PLOT ENTERED BY T HE ASSESSEE WITH M/S KIADB ON 16-12-2009 DOES MENTION THAT THERE WAS A LEASE-C UM-SALE AGREEMENT DATED 7 ITA NO.786(B)/15 09-02-1993 BETWEEN KIADB AND THE ASSESSEE. RELEVAN T PART OF THE SALE DEED IS RE-PRODUCED HEREUNDER; DEED OF SALE EXECUTED AT MYSORE THIS 16TYH DAY OF DECEMBER MONTH TWO THOUSAND NINE BY THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, HAVING ITS OFFI CE AT K>R>S>ROAD, METAGALLY POST, MYSORE-16 REPRESENTED B Y SRI G.H..CHIKKAIAH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY HEREINAFT ER CALLED THE VENDOR WHICH TERM WHEREVER IT OCCURS IN THESE PRESENTS SHALL MEAN AND INCLUDE ITS SUCCESSORS IN I NTEREST AND ASSIGNS TO AND IN FAVOUR OF M/S PRAJWAL ENTERPR ISES, PLOT NO.265S, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSORE REPRES ENTED BY SRI U.G.UTHAPPA, PROPRIETOR HEREINAFTER CALLED T HE PURCHASER WHICH TERM WHEREVER IT OCCURS IN THESE PRESENTS SHALL MEAN INCLUDE HIS/HER/IS/THEIR HEIRS, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. WHEREAS BY AN LEASE-CUM-SALE AGREEMENT DATED 9 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY MONTH ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED & NINETY THREE MADE BETWEEN THE VENDER OF THE ONE PAR T AND THE PURCHASER OF THE OTHER PART, THE VENDOR AGREED TO SELL TO HIS, PURCHASER UPON THE PERFORMANCE AND OBSERVAN CE BY THE PURCHASER OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE SAID AGREEMENT AND THE PURCHASER AGREED TO PURCHASE, ALL THAT PIECE OF LAND AND PREM ISES KNOWN AS PLOT NOS. 265S OF HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITUATED IN SY.NO.344 OF HEBBAL VILLAGE KASABA HOBL I, 8 ITA NO.786(B)/15 MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT CONTAINING BY ADMESUREMENTS 967.00 SQ.MTR, OR THEREABOUTS AND MOREFULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE HEREUNDER WRITT EN AND DELINEATED ON THE PLAN ANNEXED HERETO AND THER EON SURROUNDED BY A RED COLOUR BOUNDARY LINE TOGETHER W ITH THE BUILDINGS AND ERECTIONS STANDING AND BEING THER EON AND TOGETHER WITH ALL RIGHTS, EASEMENTS, PRIVILEGES , ADVANTAGES AND APPURTENANCES WHATSOEVER PERTAINING TO THE SAID PROPERTY EXCEPT AND RESERVING UNTO THE VEN DOR ALL MINES AND MINERALS IN AND UNDER THE SAID LAND OR AN Y PART THEREOF. NO DOUBT, THE COST OF THE PROPERTY MENTIONED IN THE PURCHASE DEED IS ONLY RS.46,851/-AND RELEVANT PARA IS RE-PRODUCED HEREUND ER; NOW THIS DEED OF SALE WITNESSETH THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF RS.46,851/- (RS. FORTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED & FIFTY ONE ONLY) PAID IN TH E AFORESAID MANNER BY THE PURCHASER TO THE VENDOR, T HE VENDOR DO HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE, ADMIT AND RELEASE THE PURCHASER THERE FROM AND THE VENDOR DO HEREBY CONVE Y, TRANSFER AND ASSIGN UNTO THE PURCHASER, BY WAY OF ABSOLUTE SALE, ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL OF LAND TO GETHER WITH THE SUPERSTRUCTURES THEREON CONSTRUCTED BY THE PURCHASER IN PLOT NOS.265S IN HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL ARE A, SITUATED IN SY.O.344 OF HEBBAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBL I, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT MEASURING ABOUT 967.0 0 9 ITA NO.786(B)/15 SQ.MTRS. AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCH EDULE HERETO, TOGETHER WITH TREES, HEDGES, WATER, WATER COURSES, AND ALL THE EASEMENTS, PRIVILEGES, ADVANTA GES AND APPURTENANCES WHATSOEVER PERTAINING TO THE SAID PROPERTY AND ALL THE ESTATE RIGHT TITLE AND INTERES T OF THE VENDOR IN AND UPON THE SAME OR ANY PART THEREOF TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME UNTO THE PURCHASER ABSOLUTELY AND FOREVER AND THE PURCHASER SHALL AND MAY AT ALL TIME S HEREAFTER PEACEABLY AND QUIETLY POSSESSES AND ENJOY THE SCHEDULE MENTIONED PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL EVIC TION, INTERRUPTION, CLAIM OR DEMAND WHATSOEVER FROM OR BY THE VENDOR OR ANY ONE CLAIMING FROM UNDER OR IN TRUST FOR THE VENDOR. 8. IT APPEARS FROM THE ABOVE THAT THERE WERE SUPERS TRUCTURES IN THE PLOT AND CONSIDERATION OF RS.46,851/- IS ALSO MENTI ONED THEREIN. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS A SHED CONSTRUCTED IN THE LAND A ND COST THEREOF SHOULD BE AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT. THE LD. AO HAS MEN TIONED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10 HAD SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS.45,000/- AS THE COST OF THE SHED IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONGWITH SUCH RETURN. AS AGAINST THIS, THE COST C ONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS WAS RS.7,88,200/- . THE AO HAD SOUGHT EXPLANATION HOW THE COST INCREASED FROM 45,000/- TO RS.7,88,200/- VIZ. A 10 ITA NO.786(B)/15 DIFFERENCE OF RS.7,43,200/-SINCE THE COST OF THE PR OPERTY AS PER THE PURCHASE DEED WAS RS.46,851/-. THE LD.AO CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET WAS NOT THE C OST OF THE SHED, BUT COST OF THE PROPERTY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED IT FRO M KIADB. THIS WAS THE REASON WHY THE AO CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE W AS NO EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TH E SHED. AS AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS RELYING ON THE VALUATION REPORT DAT ED 04-01-2010 OF SHRI YOGIS RAO, D.V IN WHICH IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE CO ST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS RS.2,55,000/-. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THIS VALUATION REPORT WAS OBTAINED BY THE PURCHASER FOR RAISING A LOAN. EVEN IF WE ACCEP T THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS INDEED A BUILDING IN THE PL OT, IT IS A FACT THAT THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REFLECT THE C OST OF THE BUILDING. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION, THAT TH E HUF OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE KARTA HAD FILED ITS RETURN SHOWING THE COST OF THE SHED IN ITS BALANCE SHEET. THE SAID HUF WAS ALSO ASSESSED TO T AX. WHEN ALL THESE ARE SEEN TOGETHER, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BUILDING WAS OWNED BY HUF, WHEREAS THE LAND WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. I N SUCH A SITUATION, FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE DEDUCTED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION DID NOT BEL ONG TO THE ASSESSEE. NEVERTHELESS, WE FIND THAT THE LD., CIT(A) IN ALL F AIRNESS, HAD DIRECTED THE AO 11 ITA NO.786(B)/15 TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE COST OF SHED, AS SHOWN B Y THE HUF IN ITS BALANCE SHEET, WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS OF THE ASS ESEE. AS ALREADY MENTIONED BY US, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE PLEADING OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE BUILDING BELONGED TO HIM, BUT NOT TO HUF. IN THE CI RCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) HENCE, GROUND NO.3 & 3.1 OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 10. VIDE GROUND NO.4 & 4.1 THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEV ED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,89,000/- WAS NOT ACCEPTED, BUT WAS CONSIDERED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES. ACTUAL ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS RS.3,89,000/ - AND NOT RS.2,89,000/-. 11. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEC LARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,85,000/- FROM 8 ACRES OF LAND. AS PER THE LD. AR THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING COFFEE PLANTATION. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD. AR, THE AO WENT BY THE YIELD SET OUT IN THE NABARD WEBSITE, AN D REACHED AN ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION THAT 8 ACRES OF COFFEE PLANTATION WOULD YIELD ONLY RS.96,000/-. AS PER THE LD. AR THIS RESULTED IN AN UNFAIR ADDITI ON OF RS.3,89,000/-. ACCORDING TO HIM, LD. CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THIS WIT HOUT APPRECIATING ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS. SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR WA S THAT NONE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD DISPUTED THE PRESENCE OF COFFEE CUL TIVATION IN THE 8 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NOT EVEN ANY 12 ITA NO.786(B)/15 INSPECTION DONE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THUS, ACC ORDING TO HIM, THE ADDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED. 12. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON AVAILABLE RECORD. IT MIGHT BE TRUE THAT THAT ASSES SEE WAS HAVING 8 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHEREIN COFFEE WAS CULTIVATED. H OWEVER, MERE OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY WOULD NOT TRANSFORM ITSELF INTO INCOME. THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD EARNED AN AGRICULTURAL INC OME OF RS.4,85,000/- FROM 8 ACRES OF COFFEE PLANTATION. ASSESSEE WAS NO T ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE EXCEPT FOR A CERTIFICATE FROM THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, SRIMANGALA HOBLI WHICH GAVE DETAILS OF CROPS GROWN. ASSESSE E DID NOT SHOW ANYTHING TO PROVE THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OR RECEIP TS THERE FROM. IN SUCH SITUATION, WE CANNOT FAULT THE LD. AO FOR FOLLOWING THE NABARD GUIDELINES. AS PER SUCH GUIDELINES INCOME FROM A COFFEE PLANTAT ION WOULD BE IN THE RANGE OF RS.1000/- TO 26,000/- FROM THE 5 TH YEAR TO 9 TH YEAR. THE AO HAD TAKEN AN AVERAGE OF RS.12,000/- AND ESTIMATED THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.96,000/-. THE AVERAGE OF RS.26.000/-AND RS.1,000 /- WOULD BE RS.13,500/- AND NOT RS.12,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, INCO ME FROM 8 ACRES CAN BE FAIRLY ESTIMATED AT RS.1,08,000/- THEREFORE, WE DIR ECT THE ADDITION TO BE 13 ITA NO.786(B)/15 RESTRICTED TO RS.3,77,000/-. PART RELIEF IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO.4 & 4.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALL OWED. 14. TO SUMMARISE THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 7 TH APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE, K ) ( ABRAHAM P GEORGE ) JUD I CIAL MEMER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE: D A T E D : 07-04-2016 AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), BANGALORE 4. CIT, BANGALORE 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE