Shri Gulab Gupta, Unnao v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

ITA 141/LKW/2014 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 14123714 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AHDPG1464A
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 141/LKW/2014
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Shri Gulab Gupta, Unnao
Respondent Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 11-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 19-09-2014
Next Hearing Date 19-09-2014
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 06-03-2014
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.141/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 - 11 DY.C.I.T. RANGE - 2 LUCKNOW. VS SHRI GULAB GUPTA TAH. - VILLAGE DISTT. UNNAO. PAN:AHDPG1464A (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI S. K. BAJPAI ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA D.R. RESPONDENT BY 19/09/2014 DATE OF HEARING 11 /11/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I LUCKNOW DATED 25/11/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 16 000/ - AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OUT OF THE SALE OF EUCALYPTUS TREES FOR RS.1 25 000/ - . 3. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE CIT(A) WHEREAS LEARNED D.R. OF TH E REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 2 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF PLANTATION. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS OF WOOD SOLD DATE OF SALE QUANTITY SOLD RATE ETC. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DETAILS OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE WOOD WAS SOLD WAS ALSO N OT MADE AVAILABLE. THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AS PER PARA 5.1 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - 5.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER. I FIND THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT 70 TREES OF EUCALYPTUS WERE STANDING ON TH E PLOT OF THE LAND OWNED BY THE APPELLANT BETWEEN THE FASLI YEARS 1414 AND 1420 AND THE SAME WERE CUT IN BETWEEN THESE FASLI YEARS. I ALSO AGREE WITH SUBMISSIONS OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS OF WOOD SOLD SUCH AS DAT E OF SALE QUANTITY SOLD RATE ETC.. ALSO DETAILS OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE WOOD WAS SOLD WERE ALSO NOT AVAILABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I AM OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT FROM SALE OF EUCALYPTUS TREES REQUIRED TO BE ESTIMATED. IN ONE OF THE ARTICLES 'EUCALYPTUS AND TIMBER PLANTATION ON WASTELANDS IN NORTHERN INDIA' WRITTEN BY CHANDRA MOHAN SHUKLA MANAGER NABARD (AVAILABLE ON WEBSITE: HTTP://WWW.FAO.ORG/OCREP/ ARTICLE/ WFC/XII/0634 - C 2.HTM) THE AUTHOR HAS ESTIMATED EXPECTED YIELD AND INCOME AFTER TEN YEARS FROM PLANTING OF 1600 EUCALYPTUS TREES AND 200 KIKAR TREES ON ONE HECTARE OF WASTELAND. AS PER THE ESTIMATION MADE BY HIM EXPECTED TOTAL INCOME FROM SUCH PLANTATION IS IN THE RANGE O F TWO LACS MEANING THEREBY THAT INCOME FROM 75 EUCALYPTUS TREES WOULD BE IN THE RANGE OF 70/1600 RS.2 00 000/ - = RS.8 750/ - . FURTHER THIS INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF PLANTATION. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE ABO VE ESTIMATED INCOME FROM SALE OF 70 EUCALYPTUS TREES IS TAKEN AS APPROX. RS.9 000/ - AND OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.1 25 000/ - MADE BY THE AO ADDITION OF RS.1 16 000/ - (RS.1 25 000 - 9 000) IS CONFIRMED. THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS.9 000/ - . 3 4.1 FROM THE AB OVE PARA FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WE FIND THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS HAVING BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER BY CONSIDERING AN ARTICLE AVAILABLE ON INTERNET AS HAS BEEN NOTED IN THE ABOVE PARA FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) REPRODUCED ABOVE AND THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF 70 TREES HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE AVAILABLE ON INTERNET. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE BASIS ADOPTED BY CIT(A). BEFORE US ALSO THESE DETAILS ARE NOT FURNISHED I.E. THE DATE OF SALE OF WOOD QUANTITY RATE ETC. AND THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE WOOD WAS SOLD. UNDER THESE FACTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BECAUSE HE HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN AN OBJECTIVE AND PROPER MANNER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS BECAUSE THE SAME WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE NECESSARY FACTS ARE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US ALSO WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN T HE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 /11/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5.D.R. I.T.A.T. LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR