Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
Satishchand Samirmal Gothi Huf, Itarsi vs Assessee on 9 April, 2013
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA, A.M.
PAN NO. : AAAHG6186K
I.T(SS).A.No.377/Ind/2012
Block Period : 1.4.1996 to 22.10.2002
Satishchand Samirmal ACIT,
Gothi HUF, 1(1),
Sarafa Bazar, Bhopal
Itarsi vs
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by : Shri S. S. Deshpande, C. A.
Respondent by : Shri R. A. Verma, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 09.04.2013
Date of : .05.2013
pronouncement
ORDER
PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) dated 27/6/2012 , for the block period 01.04.1996 to 22.10.2002 in the matter of order passed u/s 158BD read with Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-: 2: -
2. Facts in brief are that search was conducted at the business and residential premises of the assessee on 23.10.2002. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 158BD. In response to the same, the assessee filed return declaring undisclosed income at Nil. During the course of search, physical stock was found less than the stock as per the books of account. Certain loose papers were also found on the basis of which profit was estimated by Assessing Officer. The addition was also made on account of capital required for purchase of goods. The ld. CIT(A) enhanced the income of the assessee by Rs. 5,23,585/- being the purchase outside the books of account at Rs. 11,63,985/-.
3. Vide ground nos. 1 & 2 , the assessee has challenged the legality of assessment framed u/s 158BD. However, during the course of hearing, the legal grounds so raised were not pressed by the ld. Authorized Representative , accordingly, ground nos. 1 & 2 are dismissed as not pressed.
4. On merit of addition, following grounds have been taken by the assessee, which read as under :- 2
-: 3: -
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 33,200/- made in each of the assessment year 1997-98 and 1998-99, in all of Rs. 66,400/- without any reasonable findings on record.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 34,731/- as undisclosed income from other sources -
Interest on FDR and on NSC etc., whereas total income was below taxable limit.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 1,83,207/- by wrongly applying profit rate @ 12 %.
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in law in confirming alleged unaccounted sales and 3
-: 4: -
purchases of Rs. 11,63,985/-, which is bad in law.
7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in law in confirming addition of Rs.4,00,000/- considered as investments on estimate basis, is bad in law.
8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in law in not allowing the relief - telescopic relief of undisclosed income, declared at Rs.
3,00,000/-, in firm case.
9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in law in making enhancement of Rs. 5,23,985/- is bad in law.
10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 50,000/-each in 4
-: 5: -
the name of Vimalchand and Inderchand Jain both resident of Hyderabad, in all of Rs.
1,00,000/- as unexplained deposits are bad in law.
11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-I, Bhopal erred in law in confirming addition of Rs. 3,85,000/- made on account of unexplained agricultural income of the block period, without any reasonable basis on record, is bad in law.
5. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. From the record, we found that the assessee is an individual engaged in trading of agricultural machinery, like electric poles, diesel engine and spare parts in the name of Gothi Brothers. The business of Gothi Brothers was being carried out in partnership since long. However, from 1.4.2001, the firm was dissolved and was taken over by the assessee, who was one of the partners in the said firm. During course of search, on 23.10.2002, stocks were found at Rs. 9,46,945/- as 5
-: 6: -
against stock as per books, which was calculated at Rs. 14,69,779/-. Thus, there was a shortage of stock amounting to Rs. 4,72,834/- (Rs. 14,69,779/- (-) Rs. 9,46,945/- ). While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 56,740/- on the ground that the stock was found less at Rs. 4,72,834/-, which is on account of sales made outside the books of account. He estimated gross profit at 12 % of the alleged sales outside the books of account. On the basis of loose papers, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of account and estimated sales outside the books of account at Rs. 20 lakhs. By applying gross profit rate at 12 %, an addition of Rs. 2,40,000/- was made. The Assessing Officer made further addition of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of investment on capital required for the purpose of purchase outside the books of account. Before the CIT(A), the assessee challenged addition of Rs. 2,40,000/- and also addition of Rs. 4 lakhs being the capital requirement. However, the CIT(A) enhanced the income of assessee by Rs. 5,23,585/- being the purchase outside the books at Rs. 11,63,985/-. Contention of the ld. Authorized 6
-: 7: -
Representative was that no paper or documents or evidence was found during course of search about the purchase made outside the books of account. As per ld. Authorized Representative, the papers so found were totally related to the sales. Further contention of the ld. Authorized Representative was as under :-
"It is humbly submitted that the whole income of M/s. Gothi Bros. ( Firm) was assessed on the basis of loose papers showing the unrecorded sales up to 25.10.2002. The income was estimated in the hands of the firm by mentioning all the figures about the difference in the stock and the sales made on the loose papers. The total income was added in the hands of the firm with an assumption that the unrecorded sales were made by the erstwhile firm.
The ld. CIT(A) while dealing with the appeal of the firm has even estimated the sales after 1.4.2001 and estimated the income at 10 % of the sales ( page - 36 of the paper book ). The Hon'ble Tribunal has upheld 7
-: 8: -
the said additions in its order dated 18.8.2011 vide pages 50 to 56 of the paper book. Thus, it is humbly submitted that once the income is taxed in the hands of the erstwhile firm, the same cannot be assessed as an income of the assessee.
Alternatively, it is submitted that M/s. Gothi Brothers ( Firm ) had already the capital of Rs. 5,00,000/- as per the estimate made by the ld. Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Under these circumstances, no additional capital can be added as undisclosed income."
6. The ld. Authorized Representative also placed on record the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Gothi Brothers dated 18.08.2011 and it was contended as under :-
"In the case of the firm, M/s. Gothi Brothers, the assessment had been framed on the basis of this search for the period from 1.4.1996 to 25.10.2002 ( page 20-24 of P.B.). The total sales were estimated at Rs. 7.5 crores and after deducting the gross profit up to assessment year 2001-02, the addition was 8
-: 9: -
made at Rs. 50,50,212/-. In the case of the firm the matter was taken before the ld. CIT(A) who determined the sales shown in the loose papers for different years and applied the gross profit of 10 %. The ld. CIT(A) also estimated the sales for the assessment year 2002-03 and form 1.4.2002 to 25.10.2002 at Rs. 5 lakhs each and applied the gross profit of 10 % and made the addition of Rs.
50,000/- for each year totaling to Rs. 1,00,000/- ( page 35 and 26 of the paper book ). The ld. CIT(A) maintained the addition of Rs. 6,36,451/-, being 10 % of the sale shown in the loose papers. The matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Tribunal by the Department in I.T(SS).A.Nos. 92/2005 and by the assessee in C.O. 113/05. The Department challenged the deletion f Rs. 44,13,761/- ( Rs. 50,50,212/- Rs. 6,36,451/- ) and in C.O. the assessee challenged the additions maintained at Rs. 6,36,451/-. The Hon'ble Tribunal after 9
-: 10: -
discussing the arguments advanced before it and after considering the facts, dismissed the departmental appeal as well as assessee's C.O. Thus, it would be seen that the addition for the assessment year 2002-03 and part of 2003-04 were confirmed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, being the 10 % on the estimated sales recorded in the loose papers."
7. In view of the above decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Gothi Brothers, it was contended by ld. Authorized Representative that even if any addition is to be made, the same should be restricted to 10 % of profit on estimated sales recorded in loose papers.
8. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the orders of lower authorities and contended that the Assessing Officer has made addition by estimating profit as well as estimating investment made in unaccounted purchases utilized for making the alleged sales outside the books of account.
10
-: 11: -
9. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below as well as remand report filed by the Assessing Officer and rejoinder filed by assessee. From the record, we found that the assessee is HUF and in this case, a search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was carried out on 23.10.2002 and 24.10.2002 and business premises at Sarafa Bazar, Itarsi. The assessee stated to have filed its return of income in reply to the notice u/s 158BD, on 01.09.2003 showing total income of Rs. NIL for the block period. The notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was issued on 28.05.2004 and served upon the assessee on 04.06.2004. The assessee is HUF having Shri Satish Chand Gothi, Smt. Pushpa Gothi, Shri Sandeep Gothi, Shri Sanjeev Gothi and Shri Sachin Gothi as members. The HUF is having source of income from M/s. Gothi Bros. During the course of search, shortage in stock was found on which Assessing Officer has estimated gross profit of 12 %, accordingly, addition of Rs. 56,00,740/- was made. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to 11
-: 12: -
apply net profit rate instead of gross profit. We found that after considering the decision of Jurisdictional High Court reported at 263 ITR 610 as well as Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in 158 CTR 372, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly directed the Assessing Officer to, sustain addition by applying net profit rate instead of gross profit rate. The precise observation of CIT(A) was as under :-
"I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant and observations of the Assessing Officer in assessment order. It may be noted that there is no dispute as regards the shortage of stock amounting to Rs. 4,72,834/- as also that such stock may have been sold in unaccounted manner. There is also no dispute on the g.p. rate at 12% being declared by the appellant. The only dispute of the appellant is that while determining the profit n.p.rate should have been applied and not the GROSS PROFIT. The appellant has placed 12
-: 13: -
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court Madhya Pradesh in the case of Balkishan Ajitkumar vs. CIT 263 ITR 610. It may be noted that in the case of M/s Balkishan Ajitkumar, the Hon'ble court has observed that the total sale cannot be profit and that the sales comprises the cost of purchases, other expenses and the profit involved in such sales. The Hon'ble Court has also referred and relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. President Industries reported in (2000) 158 CTR 372. In this case, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also held that the sales only represented price received by the seller of the goods and for acquisition of which the seller has already incurred the cost including purchase price and other expenses. The Hon'ble court has further observed that unless there is a finding to the affect that the purchase price for 13
-: 14: -
affecting such sales and other expenses were also not shown in the books of account the total sales value cannot be added. On careful consideration of the case laws referred to and discussed above, it is gathered that the Hon'ble court have only held that the total amount of sales cannot be the income unless the expenditure including purchases and others related to such sales are also found to be of unaccounted nature. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has accordingly, held that in such circumstances, only net profit can be estimated and taxed as income and not the gross profit. It may be stated that the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on the revenue authorities and in view of very specific decision in the above mentioned case, it is held that NET PROFIT rate should be applied on such total sales and not the GROSS PROFIT. 14
-: 15: -
The Assessing Officer is accordingly, directed to apply NET PROFIT rate shown by the appellant in the relevant assessment year to determine the quantum of taxable income."
10. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that the physical stock found during the course of search was short by Rs. 4,72,834/- as compared to the stock as per books of account. The shortage in stock is to be treated as sales made by the assessee out of books of account, accordingly, the CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to apply net profit rate on such unaccounted sales and to retain addition to that extent, the decision of CIT(A) was arrived at after considering the proposition of law laid down by Jurisdictional High Court as reported in 268 ITR 610, accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in this part of the order of the CIT(A) for directing the Assessing Officer to uphold addition to the extent of net profit rate on the said shortage of stock.
15
-: 16: -
11. Now coming to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted sales found as per B.S-1 to BS-6 and BS-11, BS-13 at Rs. 20,13,928/-. Out of this unaccounted sales, sales of M/s. Gothi Brothers was determined at Rs. 11,63,985/-. However, by rejecting books of account, the Assessing Officer has estimated unaccounted sales at Rs. 20 lakhs in place of actual sale of Rs. 11,63,985/-, after applying gross profit rate of 12 % and addition of Rs. 2,40,000/- was made. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of unaccounted purchases. Thus, the total addition made at Rs. 6,40,000/- ( Rs. 4 lakhs + Rs. 2.40 lakhs), the ld. CIT(A) enhanced the addition to Rs. 11,63,985/-. The plea of CIT(A) was that sales amounting to Rs. 11,63,985/- was very much evidenced from the seized documents. Against this order of CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us
12. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below as well as remand report filed by the Assessing Officer and the rejoinder 16
-: 17: -
filed by the assessee. From the record, we found that the total unrecorded sales of Rs. 20,13,928/- pertaining to two concerns, namely, M/s. Gothi Brothers and M/s. Aseem Agencies were found as per seized documents BS-1 to BS-6 and BS-11 to BS-24. On the basis of total unrecorded sales of Rs. 11,63,985/- up to a specific period, the Assessing Officer estimated total unaccounted sales at Rs. 20 lakhs on which gross profit at 12 % was estimated. Accordingly, profit was determined at Rs. 2,40,000/-. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 4 lakhs on account of unaccounted purchases, total of such addition was enhanced by the ld.CIT(A) to Rs. 11,63,985/-. On the basis of documents placed on record, we found that seized documents BS-1 to BS-6, BS-11 to BS-23 indicate only unaccounted sales. None of the lower authorities has referred to any document found during course of search to indicate that the assessee has also made investment on account of unaccounted purchases. Since no document was found indicating any investment having been made by the assessee for purchases of such stock, there is no justification 17
-: 18: -
on the part of lower authorities for adding entire amount as investment in unaccounted purchases. Since the document so found during the course of search only indicated unaccounted sales, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition by computing 12 % gross profit on the unrecorded sales of Rs. 11,63,985/- as found during course of search, which works out to be Rs. 1,39,678/-. However, the Assessing Officer himself has allowed set-off of Rs. 56,740/-, being profit added in respect of shortage of stock of Rs. 4,72,834/-. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to retain addition of Rs. 82,938/- ( Rs. 1,39,678/- (-) 56,740/-). Now coming to addition made on account of investment in estimated purchases made for effecting sales of Rs. 11,63,985/-. It is not the case of Revenue that entire sales of Rs. 11,63,985/- was effected by single sale transaction. On the contrary, there were numerous transactions of sales spreading over the entire period of 19 months. At the most, it can be said that at a time assessee was keeping stock of one month sales. From the record, we found that sales of Rs. 11,63,985/- was found in respect of 18
-: 19: -
period 1st April, 2001 to 25th October, 2002. Thus, it was sales of 19 months. Average monthly sales works out to be Rs. 61,262/-, after reducing 12 % profit, which works out to be Rs. 7351/-, the net amount of cost of purchases remains to be Rs. 53,911/-. Thus, the maximum addition which can be made on account of investment in unaccounted purchase should be to the tune of Rs. 53,911/-. Total addition on account of profit on unaccounted sales and investment in purchases works out to be Rs. 1,36,849/- ( Rs. 82,938/- + Rs. 53,911/-). Accordingly, the orders of both the lower authorities be modified and total addition of Rs. 11,63,985/- is restricted to Rs. 1,36,849/-.
13. In ground no. 3, the assessee has aggrieved for addition of Rs. 66,400/- on account of income from house property.
14. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. This issue is discussed by the Assessing Officer in para 5 at page 4 of the assessment order. As per the Assessing Officer the return for A.Y. 1997-98 & 1998-99 was not filed 19
-: 20: -
u/s 139 of the IT Act. In the return of income filed for A.Y. 1999-00 the assessee has shown house property income of Rs. 31125/- from its half share in house at Bhopal and full share in house at Itarsi. The Assessing Officer has also mentioned that in the note regarding house property, the assessee has mentioned that such income was earned since past several years. The Assessing Officer accordingly, held that as per the assessee's own admission it derived income from house property in A.Y. 1997-98 & 1998-99 as per computation below:-
ALV of Bhopal House Rs.33,000/-
Less:1/5th deduction for repairs & collection Rs. 5,000/- Rs.28,000/-
Half share of property Rs.14,000/-
ALV of Itarsi House Rs.24,000/-
Less: 1/5th deduction for repairs & collection Rs. 4,800/- Net Income from House property Rs.19,200/- Total Income from House Property Rs.33,200/-
15. Thus, the Assessing Officer has computed income from house property at Rs. 33,200/- for the assessment year 1997- 20
-: 21: -
98 and 1998-99 and the same was held to be undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition after having the following observations :-
"I have carefully considered the observation of the Assessing Officer as also the submission of the appellant. It is noted that the appellant has not disputed the taxability of income under the head house property and only claim for deduction u/s 23(1) for Rs. 3,600/- per annum has only been made. It may be stated that such claim is allowable only when the house property is constructed prior to period 31.03.1992. In this context it is noted that the appellant has not made such claim during the assessment proceedings nor has filed any evidence to prove that the house property was completed by the stipulated time. In absence of the same, the deduction claimed by the appellant cannot be 21
-: 22: -
allowed. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is accordingly confirmed."
16. We have considered the rival submissions and found from record that in the block return, the assessee has mentioned that such income form house property was earned since past several years. As the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 was falling in the block period, the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of Rs. 33,200/- for each of the year. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for upholding the addition made on account of house property.
17. In ground no.4, the assessee is aggrieved for addition of Rs. 34,731/- on account of interest on FDR and NSC. In this regard, we found that the assessee has shown interest on NSC on accrual basis and the accrued interest in various assessment years is estimated at Rs. 30,728/-. The interest shown by the assessee in the return of income was found at Rs.13,106/- and therefore, the unaccounted interest was arrived at Rs. 17,622/- (Rs. 30728 - Rs. 13106). The 22
-: 23: -
Assessing Officer further observed that in the return of income for A.Y. 1999-00 the assessee has shown estimated accrued interest of Rs.15,000/- on an FDR of Rs. 120,000/-. As the assessee held such FDRs in A.Y. 1997-98 and 1998-99, therefore, the Assessing Officer estimated accrued interest on FDRs at Rs. 15,000/- each total for Rs. 30,000/-. The Assessing Officer has also determined income on account of dividend, saving bank interest etc. and the total year wise computation of income from other sources was determined at Rs. 34,731/-.
18. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition after observing that the assessee has not furnished any explanation with regard to not declaring of interest and dividend income in its return. Even during the course of hearing before us, nothing was brought to our notice by ld. Authorized Representative so as to persuade us to deviate from the finding recorded by the lower authorities. Accordingly, we confirm the action of the lower authorities for making addition of Rs. 34,731/- on account of interest and 23
-: 24: -
dividend income so earned by the assessee during the block period 1997-98 to 2002-03.
19. In ground no.10, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) for confirming the addition of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of Vimalchand and Inderchand Jain both resident of Hyderabad.
20. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed following credits/ deposits in the bank statement of the assessee A/c. No. 1438 P.N.B., Itarsi.
Date Amount Assessee's Explanation
14.10.96 50000 By DD received from Vimal Chand Jain
06.11.96 50000 By DD received from Inder Chand Jain
Total 100000
21. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has failed to discharge its burden of explaining the source of above deposit in the Bank. The addition of Rs. 1 lakh was made.
22. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed application under rule 46A and additional evidence in support of credit loan amounting to Rs. 1 lakh and 24
-: 25: -
it was stated that copy of account of above creditor was received after completion of assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) sent these documents to the Assessing Officer for his comments. Vide letter dated 11.9.2008, the Assessing Officer submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to explain source and nature of deposit. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
23. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and the documents filed by the assessee before the lower authorities as well as documents filed under Rule 46A. We found that both amount of loan was given by account payee demand draft. The assessee has also filed audited financial statement, profit and loss account, balance sheet and copies of Bank account of Shri Vimalchand Jain and Shri Inderchand Jain and also confirmation of such persons during appellate proceedings. All these documents not only establish identity of the loan 25
-: 26: -
creditor but also genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of loan creditor in so far as amount was given by account payee draft and same were duly reflected in the audited balance sheet of loan creditor as well as assessee. Thus, the assessee has discharged its initial onus casted on it as per provisions of Section 68. Accordingly, no addition is warranted. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the same.
24. The assessee is also aggrieved for addition of Rs. 3,85,000/- offered as agricultural income.
25. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. From the record, we found that the assessee HUF held 18 acres of irrigated land at Hoshangabad District. The assessee has furnished copies of khasra of such loan and claimed that he was growing minimum two crops every years. However, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee has not maintained any books of account or register in respect of agricultural activities, nor mentioned year-wise details regarding yields derived from various kinds of crop. 26
-: 27: -
Accordingly, agricultural income was treated as income from undisclosed source and addition was made. During the appellate proceedings, vide application dated 25.8.2008, the assessee has filed an application under Rule 46A, and evidence relating to holding of agricultural land and certificate of State of Revenue Authorities regarding the production of agricultural produce were filed. It was stated that the Assessing Officer has not allowed reasonable and sufficient opportunity for furnishing these evidences and that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause, particularly, due to the fact that the Patwari and Tahsildar at the time of assessment proceedings were busy and could not issue the khasra and certificate of yield and agricultural produce. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded all these documents to the Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 28.2.2008 and the Assessing Officer was requested to go through submission including the fresh evidence and submit his report thereon. Vide letter dated 11.8.2008, the Assessing Officer stated that the assessee has furnished P-2 & P-3 Khasra forms from Patwari. However, 27
-: 28: -
there was variation in the statement of assessee in as much as during assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted regarding different crops. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by observing that even the additional evidence filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings only indicated the average yield of a particular crop in the average area of the assessee, which did not indicate or prove that such crop was grown and obtained from the particular land.
26. Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. We found that the assessee has not only furnished documentary evidence regarding owning of agricultural land, but also certificate issued by the Patwari in the forms P-2 and P-3. Merely by pointing out some discrepancy in the crop, the Assessing Officer has declined assessee's claim of agricultural income. Keeping in view the land holding and the certificate of Revenue of State Authority regarding production of agricultural produce, we do not find any merit in action of the lower authorities for decline of assessee's claim of agricultural 28
-: 29: -
income of Rs. 20,000/- in assessment year 1997-98, Rs. 75,000/- in assessment year 1999-2000, Rs. 75,000/- in assessment year 2000-01, Rs. 80,000/- in assessment year 2001-02, Rs. 85000/- in assessment year 2002-03 and Rs. 50,000/- till 22.10.2002. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee has derived total income of Rs. 3,85,000/- on account of agricultural income.
27. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove This order has been pronounced in the open court on 13th May, 2013.
sd/- sd/-
(JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated : 13th May, 2013.
CPU*
6.8.5
29