9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion that the business was let out on account of temporary lull however no evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the claim of temporariness of the stopping of business. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus the ground of Assessee is dismissed - Decided against assessee. Treating agriculture income as income from other sources - Held that:- A.O while making addition has noted that Assessee did not furnish any evidence of carrying out agriculture operations. Before us, ld. A.R. has placed on record the copy of certificate of land holding of the Assessee and family members upport of carrying of agriculture operations. We find that the aforesaid certificates are in vernacular language and Assessee has not filed its English Translation. We further find that the aforesaid documents were not made available by the Assessee before A.O. and ld. CIT(A) and the same have been placed before us for the first time. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the issue of agricultural income vis-à-vis the land holding of the Assessee needs to be re-examined at the end of A.O. We therefore remit the issue to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as income under the head house property which the appellant has been offering as business income in the past years and disallow the expenses of Rs,621441/- which includes depreciation of ₹ 323473/-. 4. Ld. C1T(A) has erred in law and in facts confirming action of A.O. in treating agriculture income of ₹ 1031686/- as income from other sources. 1st ground was not pressed and therefore the same is dismissed as not pressed. 2nd ground is with respect to disallowance of expenses of ₹ 64,365/- 5. On perusing the Profit and Loss account, A.O noticed that against the interest income, rent income and dividend income aggregating to ₹ 2,09,305/-, Assessee had claimed expenses of ₹ 64,365/- with respect to Sarvoday Hospital. A.O was of the view that since no business activity was carried out in Sarvoday Hospital, the expenses cannot be allowed. He accordingly disallowed the claim of expenses of ₹ 64,365/- . Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the disallowance made by A.O by holding as under:- 5.2. I have considered the matter. Appellant was specifically asked regarding carrying on of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced any material on record to demonstrate as to whether the business was carried in subsequent years. In view of these facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus the ground of Assessee is dismissed. 3rd ground is with respect to treating the rental income as income from house property 9. A.O on perusing the Profit and Loss account noticed that after claiming expenses of ₹ 6,21,641/-, Assessee has computed loss of ₹ 2,93,680/-. He also noticed that expenses included the claim of depreciation to the tune of ₹ 3,23,473/- and ₹ 32,263/- on account of land Revenue expenses. A.O also noticed that in case of Patel Export Company, the proprietory concern of the Assessee, there was no export business during the year. He was therefore of the view that in the absence of any business, the question of allowing of expenses does not arise. He was also of the view that since the land Revenue expenses being related to agriculture operations the same cannot be allowed while computing the income of the firm. As far as the claim of depreciation was concerned, he was of the view that since Assessee had not done any business, depreciation was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the present ground, Assessee is aggrieved for the reason that the rental income has been considered as income from house property instead of business income and thereby disallowed the expenses including depreciation. We find that while changing the head of income from business to income from house property , Ld. CIT(A) has noted that Assessee was asked to justify as to how the activity of letting out of premises constituted business of the Assessee to which Assessee could not satisfactorily furnish any explanation. Before us, it is Assessee s submission that the business was let out on account of temporary lull however no evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the claim of temporariness of the stopping of business. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus the ground of Assessee is dismissed. 4th ground is with respect to treating agriculture income as income from other sources. 13. A.O noticed that Assessee had declared agricultural income of ₹ 12,81,686/- from sale of Kismis. A.O noticed no details of agriculture operations were furnished by the Assessee. He also noticed that in A.Y. 2001- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2001-02, approximately 10% of agricultural income may be reduced to take care of the defects in the accounts of agriculture operations if any. In support of the contention that Assessee was having sufficient land from which he has derived agricultural income, she placed the copy of certificate of land holding by Talati of Solapur. The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the order of A.O and ld. CIT(A). 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present case is about the agricultural income earned by Assessee. A.O while making addition has noted that Assessee did not furnish any evidence of carrying out agriculture operations. Before us, ld. A.R. has placed on record the copy of certificate of land holding of the Assessee and family members at page 46 to 51 of the paper book in support of carrying of agriculture operations. We find that the aforesaid certificates are in vernacular language and Assessee has not filed its English Translation. We further find that the aforesaid documents were not made available by the Assessee before A.O. and ld. CIT(A) and the same have been placed before us for the first time. In view of the afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was accepted by the Lt. CIT (Appeal) - IV Baroda [ the Predecessor CIT (A) ] vide her order dated 31.10.2007. after taking into consideration the extent of Agricultural income shown by the appellant and accepted by the department right for and from the A.Y. 1993-94 to A.Y. 1999-2000. The Agricultural Income declared by the appellant may, therefore, be accepted as such. 20. Before us, both the parties submitted that the ground no. 4 is identical to ground no. 4 of Assessee s appeal in ITA Nos. 1043/Ahd/2010 and the submissions made by them while arguing the Assessee s appeal for A.Y. 03- 04 would also be applicable to the present ground. In view of the aforesaid submission of both the parties, we for the reasons stated hereinabove while deciding the appeal for Assessee s appeal in ITA No. 1043/Ahd/2010(supra) for A.Y. 03-04 and for similar reasons allow the ground of Assessee for statistical purposes. 21. The other grounds raised by Assessee were not argued by ld. A.R. and therefore the same are dismissed as not pressed. 22. In the result, Assessee s appeal in ITA No. 1043/Ahd/2010 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No. 1044/Ahd/2010 is allowed for statis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
