SHRI. RAMESH VALLABHDAS KAPADIA, MUMBAI v. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6661/MUM/2008 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 666119914 RSA 2008
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6661/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant SHRI. RAMESH VALLABHDAS KAPADIA, MUMBAI
Respondent INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(2)(4), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 05-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 02-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 02-03-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 18-11-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) I.T.A.NO. 5956/MUM/09 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) I.T.A.NO. 6661/MUM/08 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) SHRI RAMESH VALLABHDAS KAPADIA A-6 MOTINAGAR ROSHAN NAGAR LANE BORIVALI (WEST) MUMBAI-400 092. VS. ITO 25(2)(4) MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN/GIR NO. : AIFPK027Q ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DILIP LAKHANI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.M. KESHKAMAT ORDER THESE 2 ARE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO A.Y S. 2003-04 AND 2004-05. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE RAISED IN BOTH TH ESE APPEALS I AM THEREFORE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF THEM BY THIS CO NSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. A.Y. 2003-04 : 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1 29 400/-. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 5 92 600/- FROM THE SAL E OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND CLAIMED EXPENSES AT RS. 2 30 200/- LEAV ING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 3 62 400/. THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AS EX EMPT. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER C ONSIDERING TOTAL LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE AT 4.5 ACRES CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT YIELD DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1 31 688/- PER ACRE WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. HE ACCEPTED 50% OF THE INCOME SHOWN AS GENUINELY FROM THE SHRI RAMESH VALLABHDAS KAPADIA 2 AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND TREATED THE REMAINING E QUAL PART OF THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT FOR WHICH ADDITION WAS MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. EVENTUALLY WHEN THE MATTE R CAME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE FRESH INSTANT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED C OPIES OF 7/12 EXTRACTS FOR LAND HOLDING COPIES OF AGREEMENT WITH VENDOR O F AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE COPIES OF BILLS AND OTHER EXPENSES INCURRE D. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND THE PROJECTION OF THE E NTIRE SALE PROCEEDS IN CASH THE ASSESSEES VERSION WAS NOT CAPABLE OF ACC EPTANCE. HE REPEATED HIS ACTION BY TREATING 50% OF THE INCOME DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL AND THE REMAINING PART AS UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THIS LED TO THE MAKING OF ADDITION TO T HE TUNE OF RS. 1 81 200/-. IN THE FIRST APPEAL LEARNED CIT(A) RE DUCED THE ADDITION TO RS. 1 29 400/-. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF THE PARTIAL ADDITION. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF REPLY FILED BY ONE SHRI PREMJI HIRIJIBHAI NAYAKA BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 133(6) ADMIT TING THAT HE WAS ENGAGED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXTRACTING THE FRUITS F ROM TREES OF MANGOES CHICOO AND COCONUT. IN THIS LETTER IT WAS ADMITTED THAT A SUM OF RS. 1 36 600/-; RS. 2 65 000/- AND RS. 86 500/- RESPECT IVELY FROM THREE FRUITS WAS HANDED OVER BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THESE SUMS ARE TOTALED UP THE AMOUNT COMES TO RS. 4 88 100/-. AS AGAINST THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING GROSS RECEIPTS FROM THE SALE O F AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AT RS. 5 92 600/-. THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE ON RE CORD TO DEMONSTRATE THE REALIZATION OF THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF SALE PRO CEEDS PROJECTED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. NO W THE SITUATION IS SUCH THAT THE ASSESSEE DID CARRY OUT THE AGRICULTUR AL OPERATIONS AND EARNED INCOME THEREFROM. BUT THE AMOUNT SO SHOWN IS NOT FULLY SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE. AS IT IS A QUESTION OF MAK ING ESTIMATE OF SHRI RAMESH VALLABHDAS KAPADIA 3 AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION IT W ILL BE JUST AND FAIR IF 75% OF THE ASSESSEES NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIM ED IS ACCEPTED. I THEREFORE ORDER FOR THE ADDITION OF RS. 90 600/- ( @25% OF RS.3 62 400 ) AS AGAINST RS. 1 29 400/- SUSTAINED IN THE FIST APP EAL. A.Y. 2004-05 : 5. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS YEAR ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE A.Y. 2003-04. IN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE DECLARED NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 4 66 600/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED 50% OF THE SAID AMOUNT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND MADE ADDITIO N FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 2 33 300/- BY TREATING IT AS UNEXPLAI NED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDIT ION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY ME IN RELATION TO A. Y. 2003-04 ABOVE AND CONSIDERING THE RIVAL BUT COMMON SUBMISSIONS I ORDER FOR THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION AT RS. 1 16 650 @ 25% OF RS . 4 66 600. 7. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOW ED. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED ON 5 TH DAY OF MARCH 2010. SD/- (R.S. SYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 5 TH MARCH 2010 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR CONCERNED MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE SHRI RAMESH VALLABHDAS KAPADIA 4 BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI PS