SHRI BHAVESHBHAI SATABHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, ANAND

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in dismissing the appeal of the appellant holding that facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant are identical like assessment year 2009-10. 2. On peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant as mentioned in the appellate order, the part additions confirmed by learned CIT(A) Baroda which is self contradiction and against the materials available on record for the Assessment Year under consideration be consider and as such the same requires to be reduced to 1% of proceeds of bananas of fellow brothers/farmers. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has reduced estimation of commission income @ 6% assessed by learned A.O. at 10% without any martial or evidence or any comparable case brought on record by learned A.O. and as against that the documentary evidences from that appellant is earning 1% commission and therefore relying on the said evidences the commission/service charges income may please be reduced to 1% for arrangement of services rendered by the appellant on sales of Bananas of all the farmers including his own.

Briefly stated facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and the assessment was framed vide order dated 01.03.2013. While framing assessment, the Assessing Officer pointed out that the assessee had cash deposit in his Punjab National Bank SB account of Rs.1,29,73,580/-. The Assessing Officer, treating the same as commission income, estimated the property @ 6% of such deposit and made addition of Rs.7,78,415/-.

Aggrieved against this finding, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) who, after considering the submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal thereby the ld. CIT(A) estimated the commission income @ 6%. Now the assessee is in further appeal before us. Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is facilitating sale of banana by the land owner and charging commission of 1%. In support of this contention, ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Paper Book page nos.128 to 137.

On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative opposed the submissions and submitted that under identical facts in the earlier years, the matter travelled upto the stage of Tribunal and the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.381/Ahd/2013 pertaining to AY 2009-10 affirmed the view of the ld. CIT(A). In the rejoinder, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in that year the statement of the land owner was not recorded.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that in the present case both the authorities below have estimated the commission income on sale of banana. It is the contention of the assessee that apart from his own banana grown at the farm land, he is

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 16th day of November, 2017.