SHRI MURLI YADAV, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

ITA 808/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2220 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA JHA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 808/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 MURLI YADAV, 09, SAKLI DHANI, LALCHAND PURA, POST-NIWARU, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD-3(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: CRBPM 7692 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GAURAV SHARMA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JHA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/01/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/01/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 11/08/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. 2. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DIT (I& CI), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR, REASONS WERE RECORDED AND AFTER RECORDING TH E REASONS, A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE AC T) WAS ISSUED ON 23/01/2014. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE AGRI CULTURAL INCOME OF ITA 808/JP/2017_ MURLI YADAV VS ITO 2 RS. 1,49,100/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE ADDIT ION TO RS. 85,500/-. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS RE PRODUCED HEREUNDER: 3.1.2 DETERMINATION : (I) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELL ANT HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 1,85,500/- IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT TH E APPELLANT WAS OWNING 4 BIGHAS OF IRRIGATED LAND AND 4 BIGHAS OF U NIRRIGATED LAND AND SINCE THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRODUCE KHASARA GIRDAWA RI AND THE BILLS FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE, EXPENSES INCURRED BY T HE APPELLANT FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSES, THE AO, AFTER TAKEN INTO CONS IDERATION, VARIOUS FACTORS INCLUDING THE AREA OF IRRIGATED LAND OF THE LAND, HAS ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND VALUED THE SAME AT RS. 52,000/- A ND AFTER ALLOWING 30% EXPENSES THEREOF, THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE W AS ESTIMATED AT RS. 36,400/-. (II) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLAN T HAS FILED COPY OF KHASARA GIRDAWARI AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE AO IN ITS REMAND REPORT, AFTER EXAMINING THEM HAS COME TO THE CONCLU SION THAT THE AGRICULTURE INCOME DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS. 1,85,500/- IS CORRECT. (III) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, ITS REJOINDER BY THE APPELLANT AND THE M ATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CO PY OF SALE INVOICE DATED 12.04.2007 FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE SH OWN AT RS. 40,907/- AND FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 1,51,000/-, IT WAS STATED THAT THESE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE WERE DIRECTLY SOLD TO THE CONSUMERS. HOWEVER, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED IN R ESPECT OF THE ITA 808/JP/2017_ MURLI YADAV VS ITO 3 SALE OF RS. 1,51,000/- IT IS NOTED FROM THE COPY OF KHASARA GIRDAWARI PLACED ON RECORD THAT IT REFLECTS THE PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS AGRICULTURE PRODUCE BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF SALE INVOICE OR ANY E VIDENCE FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE TO CONSUMERS, THE SALE OF AGRIC ULTURE PRODUCE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,51,000/- CANNOT BE PROVED BY THE APPELLANT. THOUGH NOT ADMITTING, BUT IF FOR THE TIME BEING IT IS PRES UMED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE FOR RS. 1,91,907/-, THE QUESTION COMES, WHAT ABOUT THE QUANTUM OF EXPENDITU RE FOR RAISING THE SAID CROPS. IF 30% OF THE SALE VALUE IS TAKEN A S PRODUCTION COST, THEN AGRICULTURE INCOME COULD BE AT THE MOST RS. 1,34,33 5/-. (IV) THEREFORE, LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS ES TIMATED AT RS. 1 LAC. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,49,100/- MADE BY THE A O IS HEREBY RESTRICTED TO RS. 85,500/-. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BY T AKING SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS U NDER:- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION TO TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME AS UNDISCLOSE D SOURCE OF INCOME OF RS. 1,49,100/- AND THE LD. CIT(A)-I IS NO T JUSTIFIED FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 85,500/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINI NG THE ADDITION OF RS. 85,500/- OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING 66 BIGHAS OF AGRI CULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE LALCHANDPURA KALWAR, JAIPUR AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 1/6 TH ITA 808/JP/2017_ MURLI YADAV VS ITO 4 SHARE IN THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEES SHAR E OF 11 BIGHAS OF LAND WAS IRRIGATED LAND AND USED FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSES . THE ASSESSEE COULD FURNISH CERTAIN VOUCHERS WITH REGARD TO THE PU RCHASE OF SEEDS ETC. TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING THE AGRICUL TURE. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING HIS OWN TRACTOR, WHICH IS USED FOR PLOUGHIN G AND HARVESTING OF SEEDS. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ENGAGED IN THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, THEREFORE, NO LABOUR EXPEN SES WERE INCURRED ON HARVESTING, CUTTING, THRESHING, TRANSPORTING, LOADI NG AND UNLOADING. HE ALSO PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CULTIVATED VARIOUS TYPES OF VEGETABLES LIKE TOMATO, ONION, GARLIC, GREEN CHILI, CLUSTER BEANS, BRINJALS ETC., WHICH ARE THE CASH CROPS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CULTIVATED TRADITIONAL CROP LIKE, BAJRA, WHEAT, MUSTERED ETC.. THUS, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,85,500/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE I S REASONABLE AND THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE SAME IN TOTO . 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD SR.DR HAS RELIED ON TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. THE BENCH HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE . THE FACTS REGARDING THE IRRIGATED LAND HOLDING OF 11 BIGHAS I S NOT IN DISPUTE. THE FACTS REGARDING THE CULTIVATION OF VEGETABLES LIKE TOMATO, ONION, GARLIC, GREEN CHILI, CLUSTER BEANS, BRINJALS ETC. IS ALSO N OT IN DISPUTE. THE FACTS REGARDING GROWING OF TRADITIONAL CROPS LIKE BAJRA, WH EAT AND MUSTERED IS ITA 808/JP/2017_ MURLI YADAV VS ITO 5 ALSO NOT DISPUTED. ALL THESE FACTS WERE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPERS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. NOW THE QUESTION IS ONL Y WHETHER THE IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE LAND OF 11 BIGHAS CAN GIVE A SURPLUS OF RS. 1,85,500/- WHEN THE TRADITIONAL CROPS LIKE BAJRA, WH EAT AND MUSTERED ARE GROWN WITH VEGETABLES I.E. CASH CROPS LIKE TOMATO , ONION, GARLIC, GREEN CHILI, CLUSTER BEANS, BRINJALS ETC.. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 85,500/- ONLY. THUS, HE HAD ACCEPTED INCOME UP TO RS. 1.OO LACS. THE BENCH IS OF THE VIEW THAT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND CULTIVATING CASH CROPS OF VEG ETABLES LIKE TOMATO, ONION, GARLIC, GREEN CHILI, CLUSTER BEANS, BRINJALS ETC. ALSO ALONGWITH THE TRADITIONAL CROPS LIKE BAJRA, WHEAT AND MUSTERED, TH E INCOME DECLARED FROM AGRICULTURE TO THE RULE OF RS. 1,85,500/- FROM 11 BIGHAS OF IRRIGATED LAND APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE AND ACCEPTA BLE. CONSIDERING THESE ASPECTS, THE ADDITIONAL SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/01/2018. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 05 TH JANUARY, 2018 ITA 808/JP/2017_ MURLI YADAV VS ITO 6 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI MURLI YADAV, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD-3(1), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 808/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR