9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 349X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e denial of the claim of agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 90,627. The AO made an addition of Rs. 90,627 as income from other sources out of total agricultural income of Rs. 1,36,047 claimed by the assessee. The assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 42,570 and also showing agricultural income of Rs. 2,48,427. During the course of assessment proceedings, the figure of agricultural in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntals per Bigha. From the Girdawari report it was also noted that the assessee did not sow the crop of Sarson, in Samvat year 2057 to Samvat year 2059. But it was sown in the Samvat year 2060 which was not ready for sale upto 31st March, 2004 and, therefore, the learned AO held that it was not possible for the assessee to sell 60 quintals of Sarson to Shri Chhitarmal on 13th Sept., 2003. When requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agricultural income and interest income. He has no other source of income. It has been further submitted that the assessee had filed the return of income for the year ending 31st March, 2003 on 29th Sept., 2003 along with the computation of total income and a statement of affairs for the year ending 31st March, 2003. The assessee has shown the agricultural income of Rs. 47,600 and interest income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the learned Departmental Representative has placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below. 5. After examining the rival submissions, it is found that the AO has nowhere noted that the assessee is having another source of income. He is also not found to be engaged in the trading of crops. The assessee is the owner of the agricultural land as stated above and this fact has also no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere, the claim of the assessee has to be accepted. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal in the cases of (1) Late S.M. Bashir vs. ITO (l982) 13 TTJ (All) 236, (2) Pradeep Batra vs. IAC (l991) 39 ITD (Del) 406, (3) Asstt. CIT vs. Devi Lal Soni (2002) 70 TTJ (Jd) 24 and (4) ITO vs. Rajendra Tiwari (2004) 82 TTJ (Nag) 347. By relying on the ratio of the above decisions vis-a-v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
