SHRI PARESH JASHWANT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-16(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7014/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2013-1413 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s estimation of agricultural income was on the lower side and that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence. The Tribunal re-estimated the income at Rs. 50,000 per acre.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an advocate, declared agricultural income from his land. The Assessing Officer treated this income as bogus, while the CIT(A) estimated it at Rs. 40,000 per acre, allowing partial relief. The assessee appealed this estimation.

What were the issues?

Whether the estimation of agricultural income by the CIT(A) was justified, and if the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the declared income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(1),Section 253,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

per annum. The ld. CIT(A) has not given any basis for estimating such agriculture income. In our view, the estimation made by ld. CIT(A) is on the lower side. The assessee has claimed yield of cash crop. In our view, the keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the estimation of agriculture income @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre per annum would meet the end of justice. Thus, the assessee’s share being 50% would be Rs. 12,50,000/-. Therefore, the assessee is granted a partial 12 & 7015 Mum 2017-Shri Paresh Jashwant Shah relief of Rs. 2,50,000/-, in addition to the relief granted by ld. CIT(A). In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are partly allowed.

ITA No. 7015/Mum/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15)

18.

The assessee has raised identical grounds of appeal as raised in appeal for A.Y. 2013-14, which we have partly allowed. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency, the appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 is also allowed with similar direction.

19.

In the result, appeal of the assessee for both A.Ys. are partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29/05/2019.

1.

Sd/- Sd/- G.S. PANNU PAWAN SINGH VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 29.05.2019 SK Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. The concerned CIT(A) 4. The concerned CIT 5. DR “C” Bench, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →