SMT. KALPANABEN DEVENDRASINH GOL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GANDHINAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1598/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 September 2017AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's inability to provide documentary evidence was a concern, her ownership of agricultural land was established. The Tribunal estimated the agricultural income based on the land holding, restricting the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural income of Rs. 4,62,300, but the Assessing Officer found the supporting bills to be tampered with and the assessee unable to produce the parties for verification. The assessee owns agricultural land and had not declared agricultural income in the preceding year.

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural income claimed by the assessee was genuine, and if not, what was the appropriate addition to be made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH AHMEDABAD

Hearing: 06.09.2017Pronounced: 22.09.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH AHMEDABAD

BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1598/Ahd/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kalpanaben Devendrasinh Gol 107, Darbarvas, Vavol, Gandhinagar 382016 Appellant Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Gandhinagar Respondent PAN: AKGPG9493F

आवेदक क� ओर से/By Assessee : Shri Bhavesh Shah, A.R. राज�व क� ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Mahesh Jiwade, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 06.09.2017 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad’s order dated 12.04.2016, in case no. CIT(A)/GNR/31/2015-16, upholding unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.4,62,300/-, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both sides. Case file perused.

2.

Relevant facts are in a very brief compass. This assessee/individual is a partner in M/s. Shivam Corporation engaged in construction business. The

ITA No. 1598/Ahd/16 (Smt. Kalpanaben D. Gol vs. ITO) A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 -

Assessing Officer noticed her claim gross agricultural income of Rs.4,62,300/- in question after expenditure incurred therein of Rs.1,05,250/-. He sought necessary documentary evidence in respect of agricultural income claim. The assessee appears to have filed three bills issued by two parties prima facie indicating the same to have been tempered with. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued Section 133(6) process for verification of the above bills. This followed summons as well issued u/s.131 of the Act. Neither the assessee nor the above two parties appeared in order to verify the relevant figure incorporate therein. The assessee rather submitted her reply on 03.03.2015 expressing her inability to produce the above two parties. She however reiterated herself to be a farmer cultivating agricultural lands. The Assessing Officer however treated the above amount of Rs.4,62,300/- as unexplained cash credits for want of evidence after noticing that the assessee had not declared any agricultural income in preceding assessment year as well. The CIT(A) confirms the impugned addition in lower appellate order.

3.

We have heard both the parties vehemently reiterating their respective stands. The assessee’s only substantive argument is that she owns agricultural land measuring 5acres. Relevant revenue record also in page 10 indicating the lands in question to be fit for agriculture. The fact however remains that the assessee has not been able to prove her case of having derived the impugned agricultural income. Learned Departmental Representative strongly argues that she had also not declared any such income in preceding assessment year as well. We observe in these facts that the assessee’s mere inability to file documentary evidence having sold her agricultural produce does not form a valid reason to reject her explanation altogether. It is not something very common that a farmer growing agricultural produce may not always be able to satisfy all technical requirements in support to have derived such an agricultural income. We further are of the opinion that the above land records sufficiently indicate the assessee to be in cultivating position of agricultural lands. It further

ITA No. 1598/Ahd/16 (Smt. Kalpanaben D. Gol vs. ITO) A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 -

transpires that she had also not claimed any such exempt income in preceding assessment year (supra). This leads us to an inference the assessee is entitled to claim credit of agricultural income pertaining to both preceding and relevant previous year in the instant litigation. Be that as it may, the assessee owns five acres of agricultural lands which could be sufficiently be estimated to have produced net income of Rs.20,000/- per acre in preceding as well as impugned assessment year; totaling to Rs.2lacs. We therefore proceed on this estimation to restrict the impugned unexplained credit addition of Rs.4,62,300/- to Rs.2,62,300/- only. The assessee gets a relief of Rs.2lacs. We make it clear that our instant adjudication shall not form a precedent in assessee’s as well as any other case in preceding or succeeding assessment year.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 22nd day of September, 2017.]

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 22/09/2017

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →