Smt. Pratibha C.Thakor, Baroda v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(2),, Baroda

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 11/05/2010 DRAFTED ON: 11/0 5/2010 ITA NO.4212/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 SMT.PRATIBHA C.THAKOR 864/B/13 GIDC MAKARPURA BARODA VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2) BARODA PAN/GIR NO. : ABKPT 3018 Q (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.J. SHAH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI M.C. PANDIT SR. DR O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN F ILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II BARODA DATED 30/07/2007. SEVERAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED HOWEVER REVOLVE AROUND A SINGLE ISSUE OF ASSESSABILITY OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS WHICH ARE PRESSED BEFORE US ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 1. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 68 623/- OUT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCO ME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 1.1.ASSESSEE PRODUCED CERTIFICATE OF KRISHI UPAJ M ANDLI SAMITI KARGAON MP IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME CLAIME D BY HER. ITA NO.4214/AHD /2007 SMT. PRATIBHA C.THAKOR VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2003-04 - 2 - 1.2. CERTIFICATE INCLUDES NAME OF SOME PERSONS OTHER THA N ASSESSEE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT DURING AUCTION TH E SAMITI MENTIONS THE NAME OF THE REPRESENTATIVE BEARING THE MATERIAL ON THE RECEIPTS. 2. PARTIES HEARD. CASE RECORDS PERUSED. IT HAS BE EN INFORMED THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND NAMELY SHRI CHANDR ASINH B.THAKOR RESPECTED ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO.4210/ AHD/2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 26/09/2 009 HAS ACCEPTED THE EXISTENCE OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KRUSHI U PAJ MANDLI SAMITTEE; RELEVANT PARAGRAPH NO.4 IS REPRODUCED. 4. AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE FINDING OF THE AUTHORITIES TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF AGRICUL TURAL INCOME IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE EVIDENCE. THE PERSONS W HO HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE ARE APPARENTLY FAMILY MEMBERS WHOSE SURNAM ES ARE THE SAME WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR EXAMPLE THE SALES MADE THROUGH PRAKASH DASHRATH VISTAN KAILASH MOTIRAM VI STAN HARIOM RAMESH VISTAN BADRI MANGILAL VISTAN CHANNI MITHIS VISTAN ARE APPARENTLY FAMILY MEMBERS AS THE SURNAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO VISTAN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER THE SE PERSONS ARE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER THEY ARE ALSO CARRYING OUT OWN AGRICULTURAL OPERATION. THEREFORE WHETHER WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE CERTIFICATE IS THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THOSE PERSONS AND NOT THAT OF THE A IS NOT ASCERTAINED. FURTHER THE FACT IS THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED THIS YEAR IS ALMOST SA ME AS DECLARED IN EARLIER YEAR. THEREFORE NOT MUCH WEIGHTAGE CAN BE GIVEN TO THE MENTIONING OF OTHER NAMES IN THE CERTIFICATE PARTIC ULARLY WHEN CERTIFICATE ITSELF SAYS THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS SOLD AGRICULTURAL PROCESS THROUGH KRUSHI UPAJ MANDLI SAM ITTEE. ITA NO.4214/AHD /2007 SMT. PRATIBHA C.THAKOR VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2003-04 - 3 - 3. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SAID CERTIFICATE I SSUED BY KRUSHI UPAJ MANDLI SAMITTEE AS APPEARING ON PAGE NO.1 OF THE CO MPILATION WAS IN THE NOTICE OF AUTHORITIES BELOW HOWEVER AN ADVERSE VI EW WAS ADOPTED THOUGH THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT NAMELY PRATIBHA THAKOR HAS ALSO APPEARED AT SL.NOS.11 TO 15 OF THE SAID CERTIFICATE . WITHOUT FURTHER GOING INTO DETAILS SINCE ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE R ESPECTED CO- ORDINATE BENCH HAS TAKEN A VIEW IN ASSESSEES FAVOU R THEREFORE WE FIND NO REASON TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW BUT TO FOLLOW THE SAME. WITH THE RESULT GROUNDS RAISED IN RESPECT OF THIS ISSUE ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. 4. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14/05/2010. SD/- SD/- ( D.C. AGRAWAL) ( MUKUL SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 14/ 05 /2010 T.C. NAIR SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-II BARODA 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD