Mr. Hemant Kumar S.Jain, Mumbai v. The Income tax Officer, Ward-7(2),, Surat

ITA 1357/AHD/2007 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 135720514 RSA 2007
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1357/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Mr. Hemant Kumar S.Jain, Mumbai
Respondent The Income tax Officer, Ward-7(2),, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 13-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 13-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 06-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 06-04-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 05-04-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD D BENCH (BEFORE S/SHRI G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT AND BHAVESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA.NO.1357/AHD/2007 ASSTT.YEAR : 2003-2004 MR.HEMANT KUMAR S. JAIN 7/3227 KACHHIYA SHERI SAYEDPURA SURAT. VS. ITO WARD-7(2) SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K.PATEL REVENUE BY : SHRI C.K. MISHRA O R D E R PER G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS IS ASSESSEEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 18-10-2006 AR ISING OUT OF ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DELAYED BY 7 2 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATION PETITION. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE W AS SERIOUSLY ILL AND SHE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE HOSPITALIZED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SICKNESS OF THE DAUGHTER. THE LE ARNED DR OPPOSED THE CONDONATION OF THE DELAY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE AR GUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE DEEM IT PROPER TO CON DONE THE DELAY OF 72 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND ADMIT THE SAME FOR ADJUDIC ATION ON MERITS. 3. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL WERE ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONCISE GROUND OF THE APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER: ITA.NO.1357/AHD/2007 -2- 1. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.76 325/- MADE BY THE LD.AO TOWARDS ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES WITHOUT ANY BASIS A ND IGNORING THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED MATER IAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAK EN AGRICULTURAL LAND ON LEASE AGREEMENT. AS PER THE LEASE AGREEMENT THE ASSESSE E HAS TO GIVE 1/5 TH OF THE SHARE OF THE TOTAL PRODUCE TO THE LAND OWNER. DURI NG THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH TH E DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH SUCH DETAILS. HOWEVER IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RECEIPT OF RS.2 46 234/- FROM AG RICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND HAS DEBITED ONLY RS.16 013/- AS EXPENSES FOR PURCHASE O F SEEDS FERTILIZERS ETC. THE AO CONSIDERED SUCH EXPENDITURE TO BE MEAGER AND HE ESTIMATED THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE INCURRED 30% EXPENDITURE OF THE RECEIPT FROM AGRICULTURE. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.76 325/-. ON AP PEAL THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE SAME AND HENCE THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE PAYMENT TO LABOURERS WAS MADE IN KIND I.E . SOME PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS GIVEN TO THEM AGAINST THE LABOUR CHARGES. HOWEVER IT SEEMS THAT NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF T HE LABOUR PAYMENT BY WAY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. IN THE PAPER-BOOK WE FIND SOME AFFIDAVITS FROM THE LABOURERS. HOWEVER NEITH ER THESE AFFIDAVITS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO NOR ANY REQUEST IS MADE BEF ORE US FOR THE ADMISSION OF THESE AFFIDAVITS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN AS EVIDENCES. ORDINARILY THE LABOURERS WOULD BE ACCE PTING THE PAYMENT IF NOT DAILY ALTEAST WEEKLY AND THAT THE AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE WOULD BE OBTAINED AFTER FEW MONTHS OF THE START OF THE HARVESTING/ACTIVITY. THEREFORE THE CONTENTION THAT THE LABOURERS WERE PAID IN KIND CANNOT BE ACCE PTED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS ITA.NO.1357/AHD/2007 -3- OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE SAME IS SUSTAINED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13 TH APRIL 2010. SD/- SD/- (BHAVESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGARWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT PLACE : AHMEDABAD DATE : 13-04-2010 VK* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR ITAT. BY ORDER AR ITAT AHMEDABAD