DNYANESHWAR RAMRAO MUKADAM,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 247/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 April 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its previous order in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12, upholding the estimation of agricultural expenses. However, the addition was restricted to Rs. 1 lakh.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer estimated cultivation expenses at 35% of gross agricultural income, leading to an addition of Rs. 2,08,598. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The assessee argued that the estimation was unwarranted as the family had no other non-agricultural income.

What were the issues?

Whether the estimation of cultivation expenses by the Assessing Officer was justified and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper appreciation of facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Kulkarni
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Hearing: 10.04.2018Pronounced: 27.04.2018

आदेश / ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad, dated 18.11.2016 relating to assessment year 2012-13 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

ITA No.247/PUN/2017 2 Dnyaneshwar R Mukadam

1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad was not justified in confirming the addition made by the A.O. of Rs.2,08,598/- by estimating the cultivation expenses on upward side and purely on estimation basis, where in fact the Family had no other source of non- agricultural income. The resultant addition being unwarranted be deleted.

3.

The issue raised in the present appeal is against dismissal of appeal by the CIT(A). The assessee is aggrieved by the estimation of cultivation expenses in the hands of assessee at ₹ 2,08,598/-.

4.

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal is covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case relating to assessment year 2011-12, wherein also part of addition was upheld in the hands of assessee. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee admitted that similar agricultural activity was being carried on during the year also.

5.

The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 4,01,950/-. The case of assessee was picked up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer on verification noted that the agricultural expenses claimed by the assessee were on higher side. He estimated expenses @ 35% of gross agricultural income and made addition of ₹ 2,08,598/-. The CIT(A) has upheld the aforesaid addition in the hands of assessee.

ITA No.247/PUN/2017 3 Dnyaneshwar R Mukadam

7.

We find that similar issue of estimation of agricultural expenditure in the hands of assessee arose before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.1195/PN/2016, relating to assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal vide order dated 29.07.2016 had upheld the estimation made by the Assessing Officer on account of agricultural expenditure and upheld addition of ₹ 67,750/-. The issue which arises in the present year also is similar to the issue in earlier year and following the same parity of reasoning, we uphold the order of Assessing Officer in estimating agricultural expenses in the hands of assessee. However, we restrict the addition to ₹ 1 lakh. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, partly allowed.

8.

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced on this 27th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 27th April, 2018. GCVSR आदेश की प्रयतलऱपप अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad; 4. The Pr.CIT-2, Aurangabad; ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे, एक-सदस्य 5. मामऱा / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →