SHRI BHUPENDRA SINGH KHANDPURE, Khandwa V. THE ACIT CRICEL, Khandwa

ITA 856/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5686 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHMD JAVED
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE .., .., % BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI BHUPENDRA SINGH KHANDPURE P/O M/S. CENTRAL MOTORS, PANDHANA ROAD KHANDWA PAN:ATQPS2324C VS. ACIT CIRCLE KHANDWA / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT & ' / APPELLANT BY SHRI PRAKASH JAIN, CA )*& ' / RESPONDENT BY SHRI MOHMD. JAVED, SR. (DR) / DATE OF HEARING 03.10.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.10.2016 / O R D E R PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II , INDORE (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LD. CIT (A))DATED 1 7.06.2016. THIS . . ./ I.T.A. NO.856/IND/2016 $& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 I.T.A.NO. 359/IND/2015/A.Y.10-11/SH BHUPENDRA SINGH KANDPURE PAGE 2 OF 4 APPEAL PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THIS AP PEAL ARISES OUT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 13.02.2014 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS ' THE ACT) BY THE DCIT KHANDWA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO] . 2. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUI RE ADJUDICATION AND ALSO NOT PRESSED, HENCE, TREATED AS DISMISSED. 3. GROUND NO. 2 STATES THAT LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE REDUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM RS.13,70,500/ - TO RS. 7,44,020/-AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS. 6,26,480/- WHICH IS WRONG , ILLEGAL AN D UNWARRANTED. 4. SUCCINCTLY, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INDIVIDUAL, DERIVES AS SHARE INCOME FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND A GRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.13, 70,500/- OUT OF WHICH RS. 6, 26,480/- HAS BEEN TREA TED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN P ASSED AFTER FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WHERE ON SIMILAR MANNER ADDITION OF RS. 7,72,530/- WAS MA DE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 16,90,000/-. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT (A). HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDING O F THE A.O. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THIS TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING 44 ACRES OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTU RAL LAND AND HOLDING OF FAMILY IS 133 ACRES AGRICULTURAL LAND. T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS OF CROP SALES AND DETAILS OF PARTY WIS E SALES. ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ON SPOT SALES OF VE GETABLES, WHEAT ETC. AT RS.3, 94,800/-. WHICH HAS BEEN USED FOR SE EDS AND I.T.A.NO. 359/IND/2015/A.Y.10-11/SH BHUPENDRA SINGH KANDPURE PAGE 3 OF 4 REPRODUCTION THE PRODUCE. MOREOVER 8 AGRICULTURIST HAVE FILED CONFIRMATION WITH RIN PUSTIKA TO WHOM SALE OF RS. 3, 94,800/- WERE AFFECTED. HOWEVER, THE AO FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF PR ECEDING YEAR TREATED INCOME OF RS. 6, 26,480/- AS INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. A. R. HAS FILE D A WORKING AFTER REDUCING 30% FROM THE SALES OUTSIDE MANDI WHICH WORK ED OUT TO RS. 1, 18,440/- AS AGAINST RS. 3, 94,800/-SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME BE ACCEPTED AT RS. 12,52,060/- AS AGAINST THE AGRICULT URAL INCOME OF RS. SHOWN AT RS. 13,70,500/- BY THE ASSESSEE . THE LD. A. R. HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF NEELAM PATNI 17 TTJ 135 (MP- IND) AND ANIL KUMAR PACHORI 18 TTJ108 (MP-JBL) WHER E AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE BASIS OF CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. SENIOR (DR) VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, AND SUBMITTED THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IS MAINTAINED AND INCOME IS BE ING SHOWN ON ESTIMATE BASIS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AGR ICULTURAL INCOME SALES AT RS. 13,70,500/- WHICH INCLUDES RS.3, 94,800/- SALE TO PRIVATE PARTIES. THESE SALES ARE IN THE NATURE O F ON SPOT SALES MADE EFFECTED OUTSIDE MANDI TO PRIVATE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING AT 44 ACRES OF IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CONF IRMATION OF I.T.A.NO. 359/IND/2015/A.Y.10-11/SH BHUPENDRA SINGH KANDPURE PAGE 4 OF 4 PARTIES I.E. AGRICULTURIST, TO WHOM SALES WAS MADE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN ABSENCE OF BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE BEING NOT MAINTA INED AND CASE LAWS AS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD BE REASON ABLE TO ESTIMATE 30% OF THE SALES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,94,800/- TO PRIVATE PARTIES AS NON-EXPLAINED AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WO ULD BE WORKED OUT TO RS.1,80,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 1,18,440/- IS CONFIRMED AND THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.5,08,040/- I.E. [ RS. 6,26,480- RS.1,18,440] IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.10-20 16 SD/- ( . . ) (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD- ( . . ) (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER + / DATED : 19 TH OCTOBER, 2016.OPM