9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also disclosed agriculture income of ₹ 3,00,000/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 20-02-2006 at an income of ₹ 7,98,160/- by treating ₹ 2,82,000/- out of the agriculture income of ₹ 3,00,000/- shown by the assessee as income from other sources. In appeal, the Learned CIT(Appeals) restricted the disallowance from out ITA No.1433/Ahd/2009 Shri. Natubhai Naranbhai Virani Asst.Year -2003-04 of agriculture income at ₹ 1,00,000/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹ 31,500/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income by the assessee. This was also confirmed in appeal by the Learned CIT (Appeals) following the decision of the Honorable Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - and not ₹ 3,00,000/- and made addition of ₹ 2,82,000/- under the head "other source" of income. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has restricted the same to ₹ 1,00,000/-. Thus, there is no finding to the effect that the assessee has concealed his income or has filed inaccurate particulars of his income. Further, the Assessing Officer has estimated the agriculture income of the assessee at ₹ 18,000/- and the ld. CIT(Appeals) estimated at ₹ 2,00,000/-. Thus, addition was made on the basis of estimation only and therefore, the levy of penalty is not justified. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued before us that even if the set- off of capital loss against business profits was by negligence or mistake, the fact remains that the particulars of income furnished were not correct and willful concealment not being an essential requirement for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c) as held by the Supreme Court in UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277, penalty could not be deleted. We find that similar argument was made by the Revenue in the case of CIT vs. M/s Sidhartha Enterprises and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court rejecting the plea held : "The judgment in Dharmendra Textile cannot be read as laying down that in every case where particulars of income are inaccurate, penalty must follow. What has been laid down is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also carefully went though the detailed submission as made by the Ld. Authorised Representative and the judicial decision taken into consideration by him in support of his contentions. After analyzing the facts, it is found that the report of the Directorate of Agriculture, Gujarat State was with regard to the forecast of production of various crops in the Gujarat State and the same cannot be taken as a final parameter for finding out the yield per hector with respect to a particular crop in a particular district of the State. In this regard, the submission as made by the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee that the production/yield in the case of a particular crop may vary from place to place depending upon the nature of seeds an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove referred facts, hold that it would be fair to accept the net agricultural income of the appellant at ₹ 2,00,000/- keeping in view the size of his land holding and the statements as made by the Panchas of the native village of the appellant and other details as submitted by the A.R. during the course of appellate proceedings. In the result, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer under this head is restricted to ₹ 1,00,000/-. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is partly allowed." 7. From the above, it is observed that addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- was made merely on estimate and the revenue could not bring any material on record to show that agriculture income of ₹ 3,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
