Gurav Mallikarjun Sidramappa, Solapur V. ACIT, Solapur

ITA 931/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 93124514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEERS MALHOTRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMB ER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 931/PN/10 (ASSTT YEAR: 2004-05) SHRI GURAV MALLIKARJUN SIDRAMAPPA, .. APPELLAN T FLAT NO 4, JOGASHRI APARTMENT, 89C SIDDHESHWAR PETH, SOLAPUR VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, .. RESPONDENT CIR.2, SOLAPUR APPELLANT BY : SHRI S N DOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SMT NEERS MALHOTRA DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.20 12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02. 2012 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, A.M .: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III, PUNE DATED 19 .03.2010 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. ALTHOUGH ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 7 GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN HIS MEMO OF APPEAL, BUT THE ONLY GROUND PRESSED AT THE TIME OF HE ARING RELATES TO THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN TREATING PART OF A GRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS 2,02,724/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. BRIEFLY PUT THE FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDU AL WHO DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS 4,28,120/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, ASSESSEE ALSO DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS 3,45,670/-. ON BEING ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE AGRICULT URAL INCOME, ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF 7 / 12 EXTRACT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND-HOLDING BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT HE WAS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTU RAL ACTIVITIES, WHICH WERE CALLED FOR AND EXAMINED. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT HE HAD EARNED INCOME BY SELLING CROPS LIKE CHILIES, UDID, BEAT, JAWAR, TUR, SUGARCANE, ETC., AND IN SUPPORT, HE PRODUCED ACCOUNT BOOK, LEDGER AND SAL E MEMOS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSE SSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS 3,03,441/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF CHILL IES AND IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE SAME, HE ISSUED COMMUNICATION TO AN AGENT M/S AYUB MAKBUL KAMTIKAR AND MUDASSAR M AYUB KAMTIKAR TO CONFIRM. BUT T HERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM SUCH PARTIES AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTI MATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS 1,42,946/- AND BALANCE OF RS 2,02,724/- WAS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE RECORD OF 7 / 12 EXTRACT CLEARLY SHOW THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING OF TH E ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF SALE PATTIES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, ASSE SSEE WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. IT WAS FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING REGULAR ACCOUNTS AND ON SIMILAR BASI S THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DECLARING AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE PAST YEARS, WHICH STANDS ACCEPTED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EV EN IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. THUS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIF ICATION FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE INFLUENCED BY NON-RESPONSE FROM AN AGENT TO HOLD THAT THERE WAS ANY WRONG IN DECLARING AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT, REFERENCE HAS ALSO BEEN MADE TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMEN T FINALIZED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6 DATED 30.8.2007 WHEREIN NO SUCH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE SAME. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THIS CASE, WE FIND THAT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 2003-04, ASS ESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 8.9.2005 AND FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 SUCH ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 30. 8.2007AND FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS 1,76,680/- AND RS 1,27,190/- RESPECTIVELY A S DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT RELATIN G TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POIN TED OUT ANY DEFECTS THEREIN. MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM AN AG ENT TO THE COMMUNICATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NO GROUND FOR RE JECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. LOOKING TO THE PAST RECORDS AND THE MANNER IN WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCE PTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE F ROM SUCH APPROACH IN THE INSTANT YEAR. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS 2,02,724/- AS INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES. ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND. 7. AS STATED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, THE ASSSSE ES LEARNED COUNSEL DID NOT PRESS THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G.S. PANNU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE, DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 B COPY TO:- 1) SHRI GURAV M SIDRAMAPPA, 2) ACIT CIR. 2 SOLAPUR 3) THE CIT (A)-III PUNE 4 THE CIT IV PUNE 5) DR, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PS, ITAT PUNE