Subhash Lalji Shah,B-403, Prime Avenue,S.V. Road,Near Nanavati Hospital,Vile Parle, (West),Mumbai- 400 056. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle 17 & 28,Mumbai.
July, 20th 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "E", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (J.M.)
AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA (A.M.)
ITA Nos. 6596 to 6598/Mum/2010
Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08
Subhash Lalji Shah, Deputy Commissioner of Income
B-403, Prime Avenue, Tax,
S.V. Road, Central Circle 17 & 28,
Near Nanavati Hospital, Vs. Mumbai.
Vile Parle, (West),
Mumbai- 400 056.
PAN : AAHPS 6211 N
Assessee by : Shri Dharmesh Shah
Revenue by : Shri Baban D. Patil
Date of hearing 12-7-2012
Date of pronouncement 18-7-2012
PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, J.M.
All these appeals preferred by the assessee are directed against the
separate order dtd. 4-6-2010 passed by the ld. CIT(A) for assessment
years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. Since facts are identical and
common issue is involved, all these appeals are disposed of by this
common order for the sake of convenience.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee an individual
derives income from salary, house property, business, capital gain and
other sources. During the course of assessment proceeding, the A.O.
2 ITA No. 6596 to 6598/MUM/2010
observed that the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.
3,09,477/- and claimed as exempt. The assessee was asked to furnish
details of agricultural crop cultivated, gross income earned, details of
expenses etc. In response, the assessee submitted part details in respect
of the agricultural products sold by the assessee and consideration
received. In the absence of complete details and supporting evidence, the
A.O. considering the fact that the assessee has shown agricultural
income of Rs. 1,38,000/- for A.Y. 2001-02, Rs. 59,540/- for A.Y. 2002-03
and Rs. 41,223/- for A.Y. 2003-04, partly accepted the agricultural
income and balance amount treated as income from unexplained sources
and added to the total income of the assessee as under:-
A.Y. Agricultural Agricultural income Balance
income shown accepted by the income
by the assessee A.O.(Rs) treated as
(Rs) income from
2005-06 3,09,447 1,50,000 1,59,447
2006-07 5,32,438 1,50,000 3,82,438
2007-08 6,36,934 1,50,000 4,86,934
Before the ld. CIT(A), it was stated that the agricultural operations were
carried out by Mr. Minat Karamshi on sharing basis. Mr. Minat
Karamshi will carry out the agricultural operations and meet out all
expenses and 80% of the agricultural produce will go to the appellant
and balance 20% will go to Mr. Minat. The ld. CIT(A) while disbelieving
3 ITA No. 6596 to 6598/MUM/2010
the above story observed that if the farmer carries out the agricultural
operations and meets out all the expenses, then the farmer certainly will
get 40% of the proceeds and accordingly he treated 60% of the
agricultural income shown by the assessee as agricultural income and
directed the A.O. to add 40% as income from other sources for all the
above assessment years.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal
before us challenging in all the common grounds the part denial of
agricultural income shown by the assessee and treating the same as
income from other sources.
4. At the time of hearing the ld. counsel for the assessee while
reiterating the same submissions as submitted before the A.O. and the
ld. CIT(A) further submits that he has no objection if 50% relief of the
amount of addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is allowed.
5. On the other hand the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. and
the ld. CIT(A).
6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties
and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are
not in dispute inasmuch as it is also not in dispute that the assessee has
not furnished the complete details and supporting evidence of the gross
agricultural income earned by the assessee. However, considering the
totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view
4 ITA No. 6596 to 6598/MUM/2010
that there is no dispute that 3.56 acres of land is owned by the assessee,
we in the interest of justice, consider it fair and reasonable that 50% of
the amount as sustained by the ld. CIT(A) be treated as agricultural
income and balance 50% be treated as income from other sources and
accordingly we direct the A.O. to allow due relief to the assessee which is
worked as under:-
Asst. Year Addition 50% of the 50% of the
sustained by amount treated balance amount
the CIT(A)(Rs) as agricultural treated as
income(RS). income from
2005-06 1,23,779/- 61,890/- 61,890/-
2006-07 2,12,975/- 1,06,487/- 1,06,488/-
2007-08 2,54,774/- 1,27,387/- 1,27,387/-
We hold an order accordingly. The common grounds taken by the
assessee for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 are,
therefore, partly allowed.
7. In the result, assessee's appeals stand partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18-7-2012.
(N.K. BILLAIYA) (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 18th July, 2012.
5 ITA No. 6596 to 6598/MUM/2010
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT 39, Mumbai
4. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -II, Mumbai
5. Departmental Representative, Bench `E', Mumbai
//TRUE COPY// BY ORDER
ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI