Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji
Late Shri Gordhanbhai M. Jaksania, L/R ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 1 November, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"RAJKOT BENCH", RAJKOT
BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.450 AND 488/RJT/2013
नधारण वष/Asstt. Year: 2005-06 AND 2011-12
Late Shri Gordhanbhai M. Jakasani DCIT, Cent.Cir.2
LR Shri Kishorbhai G. Jakasania Vs Rajkot
601, New Empire Apartments
Saurashtra University Road
Rajkot.
अपीलाथ / (Appellant) यथ / (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri D.M. Rindani, CA
Revenue by : Shri Arvind Sontakke, DR
सुनवाई क तार ख/ Date of Hea rin g : 30/10/2017
घोषणा क तार ख / Date o f Pronouncement: 01 /11/2017
आदेश /O R D E R
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present two appeals are
directed at the instance of assessee against orders of the ld.CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad dated 23.10.2013 and 13.11.2013 passed for the Asstt.Years 2005-06 and 2011-12 respectively.
2. Solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions of Rs.5,28,329/- and Rs.7,14,173/- which were added by the Assessing Officer with the aid of section 68 in the Asstt.Year 2005-06 and 2011-12 respectively.
3. With the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record. The facts on all vital points are common in both the assessment years. Therefore, for the facility of reference, we take the facts mainly from the Asstt.Year 2005-06.
ITA No.450 AND 488/RJT/2013 2
4. It emerges out from record that a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 24.6.2010. Notice under section 153A of the Act was served upon the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income in both the assessment years declaring NIL income. He declared agriculture income of Rs.2,47,671/- and Rs.5,30,094/- in the Asstt.Years 2005-06 and 2011-12 respectively. The Assessing Officer found that a sum of Rs.7,76,000/- was deposited in State Bank of Saurashtra, Ring Road Branch, Rajkot on 6.12.2004. Similarly, he found that a sum of Rs.12,44,267/- was deposited in cash on different dates during the accounting period relevant to the Asstt.Year 2011-12. When the assessee was asked to explain the source of deposits along with nature of transaction, then, he pointed out that he has agriculture income. These amounts were deposited out of past savings. The ld.AO did not accept this explanation of the assessee. He made an addition of Rs.7,76,000/- in the Asstt.Year 2005-06 and Rs.12,44,267/- in the Asstt.Year 2011-12. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has granted set off of agriculture income declared by the assessee viz. out of an addition made of Rs.7,76,000/- in the Asstt.Year 2005-06, the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.2,47,671/- on the ground that agriculture income disclosed by the assessee is to be set off against alleged unexplained deposits, because, this much cash amount was available with the assessee. Similarly, in the Asstt.Year 2011-12, a set off of Rs.5,30,094/- was granted. In this way, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed an addition of Rs.5,28,329/- in the Asstt.Year 2005-06 and Rs.7,14,173/- in the Asstt.Year 2011-12.
5. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee was that the assessee has agriculture income in the past also. He has no other source of income. In spite of search nothing was found. Therefore, the benefit of earlier year's agriculture income should be given. He pointed out that from the Asstt.Year 2005-06 onwards if Rs.2,50,000/- was ITA No.450 AND 488/RJT/2013 3 considered as annual agriculture income then upto A.Y.2009-10 it could be accumulated to Rs.10,00,000/-. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have given benefit this total accumulated income. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon orders of the Revenue authorities below.
6. On due consideration of the above facts, we are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) ought to have not confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. It is pertinent to observe that inspte of search operation, department could not lay its hand on any other income generating apparatus in the hands of the assessee. The contention of the assessee was that in the year 2005-06, he was 65 years of age. He has no other source of income except agriculture income. In such situation, income from other source could not be assumed in his hand. There could be agriculture income in the assessment year 2004-05, 2003-04, 2002-03 etc. The assessee might be having a sum of Rs.7,76,000/-. Benefit of this agriculture income available in the Asstt.Year 2005-06 ought to be given to the assessee in the subsequent years. This amount could be percolated down to the Asstt.Year 2006- 07 and 2007-08; apart from additional income generated in these years. Considering this hard fact of day-to-day life, particularly, in the case of an agriculturist, who is not supposed to maintain any books of accounts, it could not be expected that he would produce cash book, ledger account in support of his claim. Therefore, we allow both appeals of the assessee and delete additions.
7. In the results, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 1st November, 2017 at Rajkot.
Sd/- Sd/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot; Dated 01/11/2017