SUSHMI'S ESTATES,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 29/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 February 2021AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not fully substantiated all sale instances of the alleged crop. Therefore, a lumpsum agricultural income credit of Rs. 10 lakhs was allowed out of the disallowed amount.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural income of Rs. 19,91,780/- from 20 acres of land in Gulbarga, Karnataka. The lower authorities disallowed this claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the claim of agricultural income was sufficiently substantiated by the assessee to warrant exemption under Section 10(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sushmi’s Estates, Income Tax Officer, HYDERABAD Vs Ward-4(5), [PAN: ABJFS5646J] HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AR For Revenue : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of Hearing : 03-02-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24-02-2021 O R D E R PER BENCH :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2013-14 arises from the CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad’s order dated 27-09-2018 passed in appeal No.0287 / CIT(A)-1, Hyd / 2016-17 / 2018-19, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenge correctness of both the lower authorities’ action disallowing of its agricultural income claim of Rs.19,91,780/- pertaining to 20 acres of land stated to be located in Gulbarga, Karnataka.

3.

Learned counsel’s only case is that the assessee had very well placed on record the sale of agricultural production document along with revenue records that the impugned sum represents agricultural income only entitled for Section 10(1) exemption.

4.

The Revenue, on the other hand, has placed very strong relevance on the lower authorities’ orders.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival pleadings. The fact remains that neither the assessee has been able to prima-facie substantiate each and every sale instance of the alleged crop produced nor there is any specific fault found therein as per the lower authorities’ orders. We therefore deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum agricultural income credit of Rs.10 lakhs out of the disallowance/addition amount of Rs.19.91 lakhs would be just and proper. We have confirmed the addition to the tune of Rs.9,91,780/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. It is further clarified that our instant estimation shall not be taken as a precedent in any other case or assessment year.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24th February, 2021

More judgments on Section 10(1)

All 394 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →