Shri Gopalbhai V.Bhoiwala, Baroda v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(1),, Baroda

ITA 3008/AHD/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 300820514 RSA 2009
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3008/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Shri Gopalbhai V.Bhoiwala, Baroda
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(1),, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 08-01-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 09-11-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI J.M. AND SHRI D.C.AGARW AL A.M. ITA NO.3008/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-2005 GOPALBHAI V. BHOIWALA INCOME TAX OFFICER 30-A KAUMUDI SOCIETY WARD-3(1) OPP. BUS STAND DABHOI BARODA. DIST.BARODA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT FOR ASSESSEE: NONE. FOR DEPARTMENT: SHRI P. ORAM SR.DR O R D E R PER SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS)-II BARODA DATED 24/07/2009 FOR ASST. YEAR 2004-2005 CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 50 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTI FYING THE DATE OF HEARING. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED T HE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.84 183/- BEING INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FROM FDR AND POSTAL MONTHLY INCOME AND ALSO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS DECLARED AMOUNTING TO RS.7 75 200/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS OF TH E GROSS RECEIPT FROM SALE OF CASTOR SEED OIL PADDY AND WHEAT NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CULTIVATED APPROXIMATELY 55 BHIGAS OF LAND AT K HANDIAKUVA VILLAGE:BHIMPURA DHABHOI WHICH INCLUDED AGRICULTU RAL LAND 2 BELONGING HIS SON AS WELL AS SISTER IN LAW. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTED DISCREPANCY IN THE SALE OF CASTOR AND SALE OF WHEAT AND ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE DEFERENCE OF RS.1 48 000/- ROUNDING IT AT RS.1 50 000/- AS INCOME FROM NON-AGRICULTURAL SOURC E AND MADE THE ADDITION ACCORDINGLY. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A PPEALS) THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE EXCEPT INTEREST AND FR OM ACCUMULATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE AND SALE BILLS WERE FILED. ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT AGRICULTURAL LA ND WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE ADDIT ION IS CLEARLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE CIT(APPEALS) HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE DETAILS OF THE AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE WERE NOT FILED AND THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN THE BILLS THEREF ORE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE A DDITION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 6. THE ITAT SMC BENCH INDORE IN THE CASE OF ITO V. SMT. SHAHNAJ BANO; ITA NO.443/IND/04 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 7.01.2005 HELD IN PARA 8 AS UNDER: 8. AS REGARDS INVESTMENT IN FLAT THE AO HAS NOT B ROUGHT ON RECORD ANY SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT THE INCOME FR OM AGRICULTURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF A PERSON HA S ONLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NO OTHER INCOME THEN NO AD DITION CAN BE MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME THEN NO ADDITION C AN BE MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME UNLESS AND UNTIL THE AO PR OVES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME WHICH I S TAXABLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AO HAS NOT BR OUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT AGRICU LTURAL INCOME WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE. CIT(A) WAS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED 3 IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3 45 356/- TO THE TO TAL INCOME MADE BY THE AO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO INCOME TAXABLE AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS NOT TAXABLE. 7. IN THE CASE OF NARENDRA BADJATIYA VS. ITO ITAT INDORE SMC-I IN ITA NO.537/IND/2006 IN A.Y. 2003-2004 HELD IN PAR A.6 AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD ESTIMATED THE EXPEN SES ON CULTIVATION. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT AS TO WHICH OF THE EXPENDITURE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY BILL OR VOUCHER. TH E AO MERELY FOUND THAT THE EXPENSES ARE VERY LOW. THE AO USED THE EXPRESSION THAT IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE EXPENSES ON CULTIVATION OF LAND ARE GENERALLY 40% O F THE GRASS PRODUCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC OR RE LIABLE MATERIAL ON RECORD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE EXPENSES ON CULTIVATION . THE AO INSTEAD OF MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.58 000/- MADE THE ADDITION WRONGLY IN A SUM OF RS.67 000/-. THE ASSES SEE ADMITTEDLY APART FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE ASSE SSEE HAS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY CAPITAL GAINS AND INTER EST ON FDR AND DEVIDED. THE INCOME FROM THESE SOURCES IS S PECIFIC AND ASCERTAINED. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT WITH THE AGRICULTURE INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT. T HEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT INDORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHAHNAZ BANO (SUPRA) IS CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY THE AGRICULTURE INCOME BECAUSE TH E AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ALSO. THE DE CISIONS CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE (SUPRA) A RE CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISC USSION AND THE FACT THAT ONLY AD HOC ADDITION IS MADE THERE I S NO REASON TO SUSTAIN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I ACCORDINGLY 4 SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND D ELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 8. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS APART F ROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HAS INTEREST INCOME ON THE FDR AND POSTA L MONTHLY INCOME FROM THE KNOWN SOURCES. THE INCOME FROM THES E SOURCES ARE SPECIFIC AND ASCERTAINED. THEREFORE THE ASSESS EE WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT WITH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH IS EXE MPT. THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF ITAT INDORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHAHENAJ BANO (SUPRA) AND NARENDRA BADJATIYA (SUPRA) ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE ABOVE CASE. SICNE THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY AGRICULTUR AL INCOME AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON R ECORD THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ALSO THEREF ORE THERE IS NOT REASON TO SUSTAIN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BEL OW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1 50 000/-. 9. AS A RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH JANUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (D.C.AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 8-01-2010 PARAS* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE RESPONDENT 2. THE DCIT (APPELLANT). 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-II BARODA 5. THE DR ITAT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// DY.R/AR ITA T AHMEDABAD