Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Kumudben Sureshbhai L/H Of Late ... vs Assessee on 18 December, 2006
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMDAB AD BENCH, AHMNEDABAD
CAMP AT SURAT -04.01.2010 to 15.01.2010
BEFO RE HO N'BLE S/SHRI DEEP AK R. SH AH, AM AND D. T. G AR ASI A,JM.
ITA No.844/ Ahd/2007
(Assessment Year 2000-01)
Late Shri Sureshbhai Ramjibhai Dhanak
(Decd.) L/H Smt.Kumudben Sureshbhai Dhanak
502, Panchratna tower,
Lambe Hanuman road,
Surat
P AN: AAGPD1852M ...Appellant
V/s
Income Tax Officer
Ward 8(4),
Surat ...Respondent
Appearance
Revenue by : Dr. Abani Kanta Na yak
Assessee by : Shri R N Vepari
ORDER
Per D T Garasia ,JM The appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) -V, Surat dated 18.12.2006 for the assessment year 2000-01.
2. Only grounds of appeal taken by the assessee is against treating agricultural income as undisclosed income. The assessee has shown the agricultural income of Rs.2,01,565/- as agricultural income. The AO to verify the genuineness of the agricultural income, asked the assessee 2 I T A N o . 8 4 4 / Ah d / 2 0 0 7 (Assessment Year 2000-01) to submit the details of land held, sale deed and sale of agricultural produce along with the details of expenditure incurred for such income. However, the assessee did not file any evidence of land holding and only one sale showing sale of cotton of Rs.93,581/- was issued by Raghuvir Cotton and Ginning and Pressing Private Limited was produced. The assessee also submitted another bill of Rs.1,99,984/- which was issued by Raghuvir Cotton Ginning and Pressing Pvt ltd. The AO has verified the record and found that the assessee was not able to produce the copy of agreement of land and details land held by Prakash Dhanak and details of agricultural expenses incurred for earning the agricultural income. The assessee also could not file the details thereof before the AO and hence the AO has doubt about genuineness of sale of agricultural produce and bills thereof. Therefore, the AO has treated this amount as income from other sources.
3. The matter was carried to CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO.
4. Aggrieved by the confirmation of the addition by the CIT(A), the assessee is further in appeal before us.
3 I T A N o . 8 4 4 / Ah d / 2 0 0 7 (Assessment Year 2000-01)
5. The learned AR submitted that the assessee was tilling land of his brother Shri Prakash Dhanak but there was a some family disputes and Prakash Dhanak assasinated late Shri Suresh Dhanak who left behind his widow and his two children who were minor at the time of his death. The legal heirs are unable to locate the papers and in view of this strained relationship between the family members and no co- operation from the family of Prakash Dhanak, the assessee could not produce the evidence to substantiate the claim. The assessee has produced the copies of sale deed, the bills of agricultural produce in respect of agricultural produce were sold. Moreover, after the death of late Suresh Dhanak, the land was transferred in the name of assessee and to support this fact, the assessee relied upon the documents as enclosed at page 8 of the paper book and pages 10 and 11 of the paper book shows that the assessee is rightful owner of the land in question. The assessee has sold the cotton to one M/s Raghuvir Ginning and Pressing Pvt limited and in token thereof, the said firm has paid the amount of Rs.1,99,984/- by account payee cheque to the assessee. The assessee also relied on the bill which is placed at page 28 of the paper book which shows that the assessee has received Rs.93,581/- from the same firm M/s Raghuvir Cotton Ginning and Pressing Pvt ltd. Both these bills show that the assessee has received the amount from the said firm towards sale of cotton.
4 I T A N o . 8 4 4 / Ah d / 2 0 0 7 (Assessment Year 2000-01) Moreover, the assessee has also incurred the expenses for agricultural activities and details thereof are given at page 29 of the paper book. Therefore, the learned AR submitted that when the assessee is having the sufficient land about three acres and the assessee has cultivated it. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has only agriculture income and no other income. Therefore, this appeal must be allowed.
6. On the other hand, the learned DR mainly relied upon the orders of revenue authorities and submitted that the assessee has not produced any concrete evidence proving that the he is in possession of the said land and he has drawn he earning from the said land. The assessee also could not prove that he hired agriculture land for producing agriculture produce and income therefore. Therefore, the learned DR submitted that the assessee has drawn income from other sources and not from tilling of agricultural land. Therefore, the plea taken by the assessee must fail for want of sufficient and concrete evidence.
7. W e have heard the rival contention of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has produced the documentary evidence before us in the paper book form at page 8 of paper book , wherein it shows that on the death of Shri Suresh Ramjibhai Dhanan, the assessee became the legal heir of the land of the 5 I T A N o . 8 4 4 / Ah d / 2 0 0 7 (Assessment Year 2000-01) village Thakoni and the name of assessee was entered in the land record of the rights only. Moreover, the assessee has received all the payments of agriculture produce sold by way of cheque and the details has been submitted before us at pages 27 and 28. On perusal of these details, we are of the view that the assessee has sold the cotton to one M/s Raghuvir Cotton Ginning and Pressing Pvt ld and the assessee has received the money through sale consideration by one chque of Rs.93,581/-. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee has earned this agricultural income and assessee was showing expenditure against the agricultural income. The assessee is showing this income in the return as agricultural income and the expenses incurred thereon. The assessee has is not showing any other income in the return of income except this agricultural income. Therefore, we are of the view that AO and CIT(A) is not justified in treating this income as "income from other sources" instead of agricultural income.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.1.2010 Sd sd ( DEEP AK R. SH AH ) (D.T.G AR ASI A) Accountant Member Judicial Member Surat, On this 15 th day of Jan 2010 SRL8110 6 I T A N o . 8 4 4 / Ah d / 2 0 0 7 (Assessment Year 2000-01) Copy of the order is forwarded to:-
1. Appellant 2 .Respondent
3. CIT(A)-concerned
4. Commissioner of Income Tax Concern
5. The DR, Surat Bench, Surat
6. Guard File By Order True copy Deputy Registrar, I TAT, Ahmedabad