LALAJI K. SHAH HUF, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 17 & 28, MUMBAI

ITA 8217/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3447 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY R PARIKH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI . . , ! ' #'' '$ , % ! & BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . : 8217 / / 2011 A.Y. 2008-09 ITA NO. :8217/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) LALJI K. SHAH HUF, B-403, PRIME AVENUE, S.V. ROAD, NEAR NANAVATI HOSPITAL, VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI -400 056 .: PAN: AANHS 7498 R VS DCIT, CC -17 & 28, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY R. PARIKH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR /DATE OF HEARING : 06-06-2013 !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12--06-2013 * O R D E R #'' '$ , : PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER O F CIT(A)- 39, MUMBAI, DATED 30.08.2011, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. NON CONSIDERATION OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF AGRI CULTURAL INCOME U/S 10(1) TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 28,80,562/- 1.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OF RS. 2,80,562/- AS A PART OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES H OLDING ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS VERY LOW AS COMPARED TO SAID INCOME. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE IS TRAVELING FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08, $ . . . 8217 /%% / 2011 LALJI K. SHAH HUF ITA NO. 8217/MUM/2011 2 WHICH ALSO BECAME THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL IN ITAS NO. 6596, 6597 AND 6598/MUM/2010 AND ALSO IN 6595, 6599 & 6600/MUM/20 10, WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD, 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN THE LIG HT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE ARE CONVINCED WITH THE OBSERVA TIONS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH MR. MINAT KARAMSHI VALJI, COULD NOT B E BELIEVED. ONE HAS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE REALITY ALSO. NO P ERSON WILL AGREE TO INCUR ALL THE EXPENDITURE AND TO CARRY OUT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY FOR 20% SHARE ONLY. THEREFORE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITH HIM, TH OSE DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE BELIEVED AS THE SHARE RATIO IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH NORMAL PRACTICE PREVAILING FOR SUCH AN ACTIVITY. NORMALLY, IF A PERSON WHO IS CULTIVATING LAND OF OT HER PERSON, WILL TAKE THE LAND ON 50% SHARE AND THEN WILL AGREE TO I NCUR THE EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS TO CARRY OUT AGRICULTURAL AC TIVITIES. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LEARNED C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS TAKEN A REASONABLE VIEW TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IN EXCESS @ 40%. WE UPHOLD HIS FINDINGS AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE. INSOFAR AS IT RE LATES TO THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL, WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAME DOES NOT HAVE ANY FORCE AS TH ERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT, TO WHAT EXTENT, THE OTHER PERSON HAD SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THERE BEI NG NO MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE SALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TAKEN TO BE GROSS SALES, HENCE, THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL IS ALSO REJECTED. AS THE OTHER YEARS WERE N OT INDEPENDENTLY ARGUED AND FACTS OF OTHER YEARS ARE N OT STATED TO BE DIFFERENT, THE DECISION TAKEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 200506, IS APPLICABLE FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL. CONSEQUE NTLY, APPEALS FOR ALL THE YEARS ARE DISMISSED. 3. SINCE THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DISMISSED THE CONTENT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FACTS, WHICH ARE COMING FROM THE PRECEDIN G YEAR, WE, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ARE JUDICIALLY BOUND TO FOLLOWING THE ORDER, BASED ON IDENTICAL FACTS. 4. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE COORDINATE BENC H IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS, WE REJECT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 5. IN THE SECOND GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED THE GROUND WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. 6. FROM EITHER OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, WE DO NOT FIND TH E ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. $ . . . 8217 /%% / 2011 LALJI K. SHAH HUF ITA NO. 8217/MUM/2011 3 7. SINCE THE ISSUE IS NOT EMANATING FROM THE ORDERS OF TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO GIVE ANY COMMEN TS ON THE ISSUE. 8. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD ACCORDINGLY AND REJECT THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH JUNE, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( #'' '$ ) ! ! (P.M. JAGTAP) (VIVEK VARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 12 TH JUNE, 2013 / COPY TO:- 1) / THE APPELLANT. 2) / THE RESPONDENT. 3) $ $ ( ( ) - 39 MUMBAI / THE CIT (A)-39, MUMBAI. 4) $ $ ( -CEN-II, MUMBAI / THE CIT, CENT. -II, MUMBAI, 5) *+, - . , $ - , %/ / THE D.R. A BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) ,0 1 COPY TO GUARD FILE. $23 / BY ORDER [ 4 / 5 6 $ - , %/ DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *895 . . * CHAVAN, SR. PS