M/S PINK CITY RESORTS LTD., JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-2, JAIPUR

ITA 869/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 113 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6336 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH SMC, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 869/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16. M/S. PINKC ITY RESORTS LTD. 395, NARNOLI MANSION, SANGANERI GATE, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAACP 9667 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI ABHISHEK SHARMA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 01.10.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/11/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 22-05-2019 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)-2, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CT (A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,6 7,932/- OUT OF RS. 6,94,838/- MADE BY THE LEARNED AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME INTRODUCED IN THE FORM OF AGRICU LTURAL INCOME. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN REDUCING THE AGRICUL TURAL INCOME BY RS. 2,67,932/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR WITHOUT CONS IDERING THE SUBMISSION AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES YOUR INDULGENCE TO ADD AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 2 ITA NO. 869/JP/2019 M/S. PINKCITY RESORTS LTD. JAIPUR. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,67,932/- WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE LD. CIT (A). 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY AND STATED TO HAVE ENG AGED IN THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME O N 15.09.2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 33,94,942/-. THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 23 RD DECEMBER, 2017 ESTIMATED THE EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT 30% OF THE GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,57,985/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY E STIMATING THE EXPENDITURE AT 15% AS AGAINST 30% MADE BY THE AO. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERN IN CASE OF M/S. GULLU MAL GULACHI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 868/JP/2019 VIDE EVEN DATE ORDER THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ME AS UNDER :- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THOUGH THE AO WHILE COMPUTING T HE AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS TAKEN INCORRECT FIGURES AND THEREBY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,37,900/-, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE ALLO WING THE PART RELIEF HAS TAKEN THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE. THEREFORE, THE SAID GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL READY REDRESSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). AS REGARDS THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) BY TAKING THE EXPENDITURE AT 15% WHICH COMES TO RS. 4, 18,950/- AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1 ,38,000/-, IT IS 3 ITA NO. 869/JP/2019 M/S. PINKCITY RESORTS LTD. JAIPUR. PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 32,72,999/- WHICH INCLUDES RS. 4,80,0 00/- AS SALE OF TREES. THEREFORE, THE GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION IS RS. 27,92,999/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,38,120/-. THUS THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AROUND 4.9% WHICH IS BEYOND THE IMAGINATION OF PERCENTAGE OF EXPENDITURE FOR EA RNING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE UNREALISTIC AND THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS CONSID ERED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 2.3 TO 2.3.3 AS UNDER :- 2.3. I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. GROUND NO. 01 AND 02 ARE BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER WHICH ARE INTERRELAT ED. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE DECLARED GRO SS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 32,72,999/- AND AFTER CL AIMING EXPENSES OF RS. 1,38,120/- DECLARED NET AGRICULTURA L INCOME OF RS. 31,34,879/- INCLUDING RS. 4,80,000/- AS SALE OF TREES BEING OTHER SOURCES. ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT ASS ESSEE HAS CLAIMED LESS EXPENSES AND LOOKING TO SHORT RAINFALL THE TOTAL PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURE CROPS COULD NOT FETCH THE PRICE AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSING OF FICER ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 24,35,099/- AN D MADE ADDITION OF REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 8,37,900/- AS U NDISCLOSED INCOME. 2.3.1. BEFORE ME, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE STATED THAT SALES BILLS WERE SUBMITTED AND NOT DOUBTED BY ASSESSING O FFICER. SALES OF OTHER SOURCES SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. 2.3.2. REGARDING EXPENSES, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E SAID DEDUCTION OF 30% BASED ON DECISION OF SHRI DURGA PR ASAD YADAV IS MISPLACED. ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LAND FOR CULTIVATI ON ON SHARING BASIS. 2.3.3. ON PERUSAL OF OVERALL FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SALES BILLS SUBMITTED W ITH REGARD TO SALES OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE NOR ENQUIRY MADE. THUS THE SALES DECLARED BY ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED. FURTHER ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENSES AGAINST AGRICULTURAL RECEIPT. LOOKING TO O VERALL FACTS AND FALLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BENCH IN DURG A PRASAD YADAV CASE, SEEING THE BETTER LOCATION OF LAND ETC. IT IS 4 ITA NO. 869/JP/2019 M/S. PINKCITY RESORTS LTD. JAIPUR. REASONABLE TO RESTRICT THE EXPENSES TO 15% AGAINST 30% TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSEE CLAIMED AGRICULT URAL EXPENSES AT RS. 1,38,120/- AGAINST WHICH 15% EXPENSES ARE HE LD AS REASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCE IS WORKED OUT AT RS. 23,74,049/- (RS.27,92,999 X 85%). THUS TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME COMES TO RS. 28,54,049/- (2374049+480000) AGAINST RS. 31,34,879/- DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE. ADDITION OF RS. 280830/- IS UPHELD. THI S GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS TAKEN A R EASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF 15% EXPENDITURE OF THE GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THAT TOO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS EX CLUDING THE INCOME FROM SALE OF TREES. HENCE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE PREVAILING CONDITIONS IN THE AGRICUL TURAL SECTOR, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE LD. CIT (A ) HAS TAKEN A REASONABLE VIEW IN ESTIMATING THE EXPENDITURE AT 15 %. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN ESTIMATING THE EXPENDITURE @ 15% OF THE GROSS AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/11/2 019. SD/- ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 01/11/2019. DAS/ 5 ITA NO. 869/JP/2019 M/S. PINKCITY RESORTS LTD. JAIPUR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S. PINK CITY RESORTS LTD., JAIP UR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 5(2), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 869/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR