Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
M/S. Pradeep Nanasaheb Desai (Huf),, ... vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 7(2),, Pune on 8 March, 2019
आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पण
ु े न्यायपीठ एक-सदस्य मामऱा पण
ु े में
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "SMC", PUNE
सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष
BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM
आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1788/PUN/2018
यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15
M/s. Pradeep Nanasaheb Desai (HUF),
Water Front Society,
Building A, Flat No.801,
Kalyaninagar, Yerwada,
Pune - 411006 .... अऩीऱाथी/Appellant
PAN: AANHP1360F
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Wad 7(2), Pune .... प्रत्यथी / Respondent
अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri P.S. Shingte
प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri M.K. Verma
सन
ु वाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख /
Date of Hearing : 06.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 08.03.2019
आदे श / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A), Pune-5, Pune dated 20.08.2018 relating to assessment year 2014-15 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Pune erred in disallowing the added back an ITA No.1788/PUN/2018 2 Pradeep Nanasaheb Desai amount of Rs.26,82,003/- on account of Agricultural Income which is treated as Income from Other sources and unexplained sources.
3. The only issue raised in the present appeal is against the orders of authorities below in not accepting agricultural income and treating the same as 'Income from other sources'.
4. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the issue was decided against the assessee and the total agricultural income declared by the assessee was treated as unexplained.
However, in the succeeding year i.e. assessment year 2015-16, the assessee had declared agricultural income of ₹ 35,63,663/- and the Assessing Officer himself vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act after getting field report from the Inspector had accepted agricultural income but had only disallowed the expenditure on agricultural activities to the tune of ₹ 5,12,480/- in the absence of vouchers.
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. The assessee for the year under consideration had declared agricultural income to the extent of ₹ 26,82,003/-. The assessee in support had furnished vouchers issued by one concern. The Assessing Officer had deputed the Inspector to verify the genuineness of agricultural activities carried out on the said land. On enquiries, the Inspector reported that vegetables as mentioned by the assessee were not grown on the land. Rejecting the explanation of assessee, the Assessing Officer treated the said receipts as unexplained and made an ITA No.1788/PUN/2018 3 Pradeep Nanasaheb Desai addition of ₹ 26,82,003/-. Before the CIT(A), the assessee furnished written submissions pointing out that it owned different pieces of land admeasuring 14.52 Hectors i.e. about 36.30 acres. The assessee also pointed out that crops of sugarcane, tomato, beans and others were grown on the said agricultural land and also produced evidence of sale of sugarcane and other crops. In support, the assessee furnished copy of 7/12 extract and also copies of agricultural bills as well as details of income / expenditure account. However, the CIT(A) did not accept the plea of assessee and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee is in appeal against the said order of CIT(A).
7. Before going into any other explanation filed by assessee vis-à-vis nature of crops and the receipts from agricultural activities, we may refer to the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in the succeeding year under section 143(3) of the Act. The copy of said assessment order is placed on record and as against agricultural income shown by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 of ₹ 35,63,663/-, the Assessing Officer has accepted the factum of agricultural activities undertaken and the agricultural revenue earned therefrom but has only disallowed expenditure to the extent of ₹ 5,12,480/- since the vouchers to that extent were not traceable by the assessee and could not be produced. In view thereof, where the factum of agricultural activities undertaken stands accepted in the hands of assessee on the basis of report of the Inspector in the succeeding year, we are of the view that on the preponderance of facts and circumstances and evidences filed by the assessee, the agricultural activities being undertaken by the assessee on his large landholding of about 36 acres stands established. Now, the question is the agricultural income earned by assessee. We are of the view that ITA No.1788/PUN/2018 4 Pradeep Nanasaheb Desai agricultural income to the extent of ₹ 20 lakhs be accepted in the hands of assessee. The ground of appeal raised by assessee is thus, partly allowed.
8. In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on this 8th day of March, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA)
ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER
ऩण
ु े / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 8th March, 2019.
GCVSR
आदे श 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), Pune-5, Pune;
4. The Pr.CIT, Pune-4, Pune;
5. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे, एक-सदस्य मामऱा / DR 'SMC', ITAT, Pune;
6. गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file.
ु ार/ BY ORDER, आदे शािस सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune