GANGABEN S. DAMOR,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, SK. WARD-3, SABARKANTHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1811/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 October 2021AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for the preceding year, which treated 60% of gross agricultural receipts as agricultural income. Accordingly, the assessee's agricultural income was determined at Rs. 5,22,597, and the remaining Rs. 2,37,071 was confirmed as income from undisclosed sources.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist, paid Rs. 9 lakh as insurance premium and claimed it was from agricultural income. The AO noted that the declared agricultural income was Rs. 8,70,996, and after considering household expenses, the income was insufficient. The AO added Rs. 7,59,668 to the income.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of insurance premium paid from agricultural income was justified, considering the quantification of agricultural income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.R
1.

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) vide Appeal No. CIT(A)-2/10168, 69 & 70/ITO, SK Wd. 3, HMT/2017-18 order dated 14/06/2018 arising out of assessment order dated 06/09/2017. The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:

2 . A.Y. 2010-11 1) That on facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in holding that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act is valid. 2) That on facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,59,668/- made u/s 69 of the Act by disbelieving a part of the agricultural income as being the source of payment of insurance premium. 3) That on facts, evidence on record, and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the entire payment of insurance premium is from agricultural income of the appellant and ought to have deleted the entire addition, as prayed for.

2.

Ground no. 1 is concerned, assessee has decided to not press therefore, same is dismissed as not pressed.

3.

Ground no. 2 is surviving to be disposed of.

4.

In this case, asssessee is an agriculturist and during the D.Y. 2009-10 relevant to 2020-11, the assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 9 lakh as insurance premium.

5.

In response to the notice, assessee stated that insurance premium of Rs. 9 lakh was paid out of agricultural income. On the basis of documents submitted before the Investigation Wing, assessee admitted and shown agricultural income of Rs. 8,70,996/-.

6.

The Ld. A.O. contention was that his total agricultural income was 8,70,996/-, he must have incurred certain household expenses an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was considered for household expenses.

7.

On the other hand, Ld. A.R. cited an order of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in the preceding year wherein Co-ordinate Bench treated 60% of the gross receipt of the agriculture produce as agricultural income with following observations: 6.1 The next question arises for the quantification of such agricultural income. The onus lies on the assessee to prove the above income through the documentary evidence. There was no documentary evidence filed by the assessee 3 . A.Y. 2010-11 to support her contention that there was no agricultural expense incurred by her. Therefore we are of the view that the agriculture income declared by the assessee cannot be treated equal to the amount of sale. Thus in the absence of the necessary documentary evidence qua to the agricultural expenses, we are of the view that 60% of the gross receipt of the agriculture products should be treated as agriculture income of the assessee. Therefore we hold that 60% of the gross receipt be treated as agriculture income and Asstt. Year 2009-10 balance should be treated income from undisclosed sources. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

8. Since in assessee’s own case in preceding year by the ITAT 60% of the gross receipt of the total agricultural income has been treated as assessee’s income and Ld. A.R. has fairly agreed for that in view of the above, we hold the agricultural income of the assessee was Rs. 5,22,597/- and rest of the balance amount of Rs. 2,37,071/- is to be confirmed.

9.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 29 - 10- 2021

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →