Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH
आदेश /O R D E R
Per Bench: These appeals are filed by the assessees against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Rajamahendravaram for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11to 2012-13. Since the issues involved in these appeals are identical, the appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in a common order for the sake of convenience as under. The facts of the case are extracted from I.T.A No.421/Viz/2018 of Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi which are common to all the appeals.
All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition of Rs.9 lakhs estimating the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre from fish ponds. A survey u/s 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee and the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessees are engaged in the pisci culture in 86 acres of fish tanks taken on lease. During the course of survey, the assessee was asked to produce the books of accounts but the assessee failed to produce the same. From the returns of income filed by the assessee, the AO found that the income admitted by the assessee is not commensurating with the comparable cases. The AO viewed that even if the income is
3 I.T.A. No.421-423/Viz/2018 and 573-575/Viz/2018 Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi and Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju, Bhimavaram
estimated at Rs.15,000/- per acre considering the water spread area, the total income would be Rs.10,35,000/- and against which the income admitted by the assessee was Rs.3,13,330/- far below the comparable cases and accordingly reopened the assessment and issued the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short).
2.1. In response to the notice issued u/s 148, the assessee has filed the revised returns of income admitting the income at Rs.15,000/- per acre of water spread area on estimation basis. Subsequently, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny and the AO requested the assessees to produce the books of accounts. Since the assessees failed to produce the books of accounts, the AO estimated the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. Accordingly made the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in each case. As per the assessments completed by the AO, the returned income originally, the revised return of income and the assessed income in the case of both the assessees are as under : Smt.Mudunuri Sridevi Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Revised Revised A.Y. Returned Assessed Returned Assessed Return of Return of Income Income Income Income Income Income 2010-11 3,88,330 8,52,440 17,52,436 6,08,040 21,21,721 42,21,721 2011-12 4,69,552 8,52,440 14,52,436 7,65,720 21,21,721 35,21,721 2012-13 5,07,206 11,52,436 14,52,436 20,81,775 28,20,410 35,20,410
4 I.T.A. No.421-423/Viz/2018 and 573-575/Viz/2018 Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi and Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju, Bhimavaram
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessees went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO and dismissed the appeals of the assessee. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessees are in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the AO conducted the survey u/s 133A and observed that the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts and the income admitted by the assessee was less than Rs.15,000/- per acre of water spread area and reasonable income from fish pond is 15000/- per acre. From the assessment order it is observed by the AO that the reasonable income from fish culture would be around Rs.15,000/- per acre for water spread area of 80%. Since the income admitted by the assessee was less than Rs.15,000/- the AO reopened the assessment u/s 148 and the assessee filed the revised return admitting the income @15,000/- per acre for water spread area. Once, the assessee filed the revised returns of income admitting the income at Rs.15,000/- per acre on estimation basis, the AO completed the assessment estimating the income @ Rs.30,000/- per acre stating that the income is estimated in similar cases in this area @Rs.30,000/- per acre. No details of the similar cases were brought on
5 I.T.A. No.421-423/Viz/2018 and 573-575/Viz/2018 Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi and Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju, Bhimavaram
record and the AO also did not give any basis for estimating the income at Rs.30,000/- per acre with the quantity of yield, estimated expenditure and the net profit. During the appeal hearing the Ld.DR did not furnish any material to establish that the income from fish pond is more than Rs.15,000/- per acre or to substantiate the estimation made by the AO. Therefore, we observe that there is no basis for estimating the income at Rs.30,000/- per acre in this case. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT considered the similar issue of estimation of income from pisci culture in the case of M/s Krishna Fisheries, Vijayawada in I.T.A. No.325 to 330/Viz/2015 dated 26.07.2017 and observed that estimation of income at Rs.13,300/- per acre of water spread area is reasonable. For ready reference, we extract relevant part of the order of this Tribunal cited supra. ‘As per the board circular the estimated income per acre was Rs.4000/- on water spread area of 70% of the Fish pond for the year 1993-94 and the same cannot be said to be reasonable for the assessment year 2006-07, which is after 13 years. However, with regard to water spread area of 70% remained unchanged. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the estimation of income @ Rs.22,000/- per acre inclusive of bunds and Rs. 13,300/- for 70% of water spread area since the assessee is not maintaining the books of accounts. The Ld. A.R did not place any evidence to disprove the estimation confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The revenue also did not place any evidence to show that the estimation of income @ Rs.13,300/- is not reasonable. Therefore, in the absence of books of accounts we hold that Rs.13,300/- per acre of water spread area appears to be reasonable and accordingly we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The estimation of water spread area and the bund area is in accordance with the circular issued by the CBDT. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the revenue’s appeal on this ground is dismissed.”
6 I.T.A. No.421-423/Viz/2018 and 573-575/Viz/2018 Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi and Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju, Bhimavaram
In the instant case, the AO has reopened the assessment since the income declared by the assessee was less than Rs.15,000/- per acre. In response to the notice, the assessees have admitted the income @ Rs.15,000/- per acre of water spread area and the lower authorities failed to bring any evidence or material to support the contention that the income is more than Rs.15,000/- per acre admitted by the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the view taken by this Tribunal in the case cited supra, we hold that estimation of income at Rs.15,000/- per acre is reasonable. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeals of the assessee.
In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th February, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह) (िी.दुगाा राि) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याधयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER नवशधखधपटणम /Visakhapatnam नििधंक /Dated : 13.02.2019 L.Rama, SPS
7 I.T.A. No.421-423/Viz/2018 and 573-575/Viz/2018 Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi and Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju, Bhimavaram
आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाऩरती/ The Assessee- (i) Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi, D.No.27-17-63, ASR Nagar, Bhimavaram, West Godavari Dist. (ii) Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju F.No.100, R R Enclave, Opp.Aditya Public School, Suryanarayanapuram Bhimavaram, West Godavari Dist. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue – Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhimavaram 3. The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajamahendravaram 4. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Rajamahendravaram 5. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, तिशाखािटणम /DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गार्डफ़ाईि / Guard file आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER // True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam