JAGANNATH KRISHNAJI DEORE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1098/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 January 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the disallowance of Rs. 2,87,910/- to be on the higher side and restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The assessee received further relief.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared agricultural income, which the Assessing Officer treated as 'Income from Other Sources'. The CIT(A) confirmed a partial addition of Rs. 2,87,910/-.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the entire declared agricultural income should be disallowed due to lack of documentary evidence for sale of crops and cultivation expenses.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sasar, Shri Deepak Sasar
For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune dated 05-03-2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee in appeal has assailed the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on solitary issue of confirming addition of Rs.2,87,910/- on account of disallowance of agricultural income.

ITA No.1098/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2014-15

2.

Shri Deepak Sasar appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted

that the assessee in his return of income had disclosed agricultural income

of Rs.5,75,820/-. During scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing

Officer disallowed the said agricultural income and held the same to be

‘Income from Other Sources’. The ld. AR submitted that in First Appellate

Proceedings the assessee had furnished 7/12 extracts to show that the

assessee is having agricultural land. The ld. AR further pointed that in

7/12 extracts the details of crop cultivated on the land are clearly

mentioned. The assessee has cultivated rice on two parcels of land

comprising in Survey No. 365/1/A/1A and Survey No. 224/1. The

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering the same

restricted the addition to Rs.2,87,910/- i.e. 50% of the agricultural income

disclosed by the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals) after considering the documentary evidence

furnished by the assessee indicating ownership of assessee on agricultural

land and cultivation of crop ought to have deleted entire addition.

3.

Shri M.K. Verma representing the Department vehemently defended

the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming part

addition. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to place on record

any documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer regarding

ownership of the land and cultivation of any crop. Before the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the assessee only furnished 7/12

extracts to show the ownership. However, no documentary evidence was

placed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to support the

sale of crop or expenditure incurred on cultivation of crops. The ld. DR

prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee.

3 ITA No.1098/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2014-15

4.

We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival

sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The 7/12 extracts

furnished by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) indicate that the assessee is having ownership of the agricultural

land and has also cultivated some crop (rice) on the said land. The ld. AR

of assessee has admitted the fact that there are no documentary evidence

with the assessee to show sale of rice or the expenditure incurred in the

form of seeds, pesticides etc. to support the expenditure incurred. In the

absence of any documentary evidence the Assessing Officer disallowed

entire income disclosed by the assessee as agricultural income and held

the same as ‘Income from Other Sources’. The Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeals) after considering 7/12 extracts restricted the addition to 50%

of the total agricultural income declared by the assessee. Taking into

consideration entire facts we are of considered opinion that disallowance of

Rs.2,87,910/- is on the higher side. To meet the ends of justice we restrict

the disallowance to Rs.1,50,000/-. Thus, the assessee gets further relief of

Rs.1,37,910/-. Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the

terms aforesaid.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed.

09th day of January, 2019. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the

Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. Syal) (Vikas Awasthy) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; �दनांक/ Dated : 09th January, 2019 RK RK

4 ITA No.1098/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2014-15

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant. 1. 1. ��यथ�/ The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयु�त (अपील) / The CIT(A)-13, Pune 3. 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Pune �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य मामला” ब�च, 5. पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल/ Guard File. 6. //स�या�पत ��त// True Copy// //True Copy // आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

�नजी स�चव / Private Secretary, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे/ ITAT, Pune

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →