SURENDRA BHARAT CHAUGALE,CHIKODI vs. PR. CIT, HUBLI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S.SYAL, VP :
This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated
26-03-2022 passed by the Pr.CIT, Hubli u/s.263 of the Income-tax
Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the
assessment year 2017-18.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an
agriculturist who filed his return declaring total income at
Rs.2,90,190/-. Such income was in respect of interest. The assessee
had shown gross agricultural receipts of Rs.48,57,345/- and
expenses of Rs.6,93,000/-. The AO observed that the agricultural
2 ITA No.37/PAN/2022 Surendra Bharat Chaugale
expenses were only 14.26%, which should have been at 35%. On
being show caused, the assessee furnished explanation as to how he
incurred lower expenses. The AO got satisfied and did not make
any addition on this score. Thereafter, the ld. Pr.CIT exercising
revisionary power u/s.263 held that the assessee claimed expenses at
a lower level against the agricultural receipts and consequently
earned undisclosed income. He set-aside the assessment order and
directed the AO to frame the assessment afresh. Aggrieved thereby,
the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
After considering the rival submissions and perusing the
relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee is an
agriculturist and has no business income. The only other minor
income is in respect of bank interest. The ld. Pr.CIT has made out a
case that the assessee declared lower expenses so as to enhance the
amount of agricultural income. When the view so canvassed is seen
in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee, an agriculturist, was
having only agricultural income and no business income, such a
presumption of depressing agricultural expenses and earning
undisclosed income cannot meet with our concurrence.
Notwithstanding the above, the assessee made detailed
submissions before the AO justifying the incurring of expenses at
14.26% by stating that both he and his wife were working in the
3 ITA No.37/PAN/2022 Surendra Bharat Chaugale
fields personally, having 5 buffalows and 2 cows etc. and certain
other things which saved the cost of agricultural spending. The ld.
Pr.CIT has not controverted any of the submissions made by the
assessee before the AO. Thus, it cannot be said that the AO adopted
a legally and factually unsustainable view, which could have been
subjected to revisionary proceedings. We order accordingly and set-
aside the impugned order.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th September, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 13th September, 2023 सतीश आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��थ� / The respondent 2. 3. The CIT concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 5.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
4 ITA No.37/PAN/2022 Surendra Bharat Chaugale
Date 1. Draft dictated on 11-09-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 12-09-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before JM the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by JM Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *
