9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nauni (Solan HP), which fact has not been rebutted by the assessee at any stage. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made on account of treatment of money, received in lieu of agricultural land given on lease, as income from other sources by the Assessing Officer, ignoring the fact that as per clause (9) of the agreement, the land-in-question was to be used for the production of wheat and paddy seeds payment was to be made in accordance with the quality of earth etc. and the market rate prevalent in the area in respect of lease money. Hence, the income so derived and shown as business income by the lessee defeats the very character of impugned agriculture income, as claimed by the assessee. 3. The order passed by the CIT(A), allowing relief to the assessee on the plea that the same set of facts had been accepted by the Assessing Officer while framing assessment for the assessment year 2005-06 in the case of the assessee, is not acceptable on merits, being perverse, because the facts had not been examined from the angle during the assessment year 2005-06 as done during the year under consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on commercial scale. 4. The Assessing Officer at page 8 of the assessment order in view of the above said reasons estimated the expenses incurred on apple orchard on per plant per year basis and was of the view that the expenditure was Rs. 500/- per plant per year. The assessee was having 2500 plants spread over 170 bighas and as such the cost on tending to apple orchard was estimated at Rs. 12,50,000/-. Further Assessing Officer allowed benefit of 10% on account of average cost of inputs and additionally 10% was provided as the expenses were based on estimation. Further, in respect of 500 plant being non fruit bearing, deduction of Rs. 25,000/- was allowed. On the aforesaid parameters, the Assessing Officer worked out unexplained expenditure of Rs. 6,75,400/- as per the calculation tabulated at page 9 of the assessment order and the same was added under the provisions of section 69C of the Act. 5. Before the C IT(A), the contention of the Ld. AR for the assessee was that the calculation on expenses at Rs. 500/- per tree was without any authenticity and was not supported by any evidence or positive material having been brought on record but was based on mere surmises and wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnized by the Courts specially when there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C IT v J.K. Charitable Trust [308 ITR 161 (SC)] for the proposition that where the fact situation in all the assessment years was the same, and if the Revenue had not appealed from the decision for an earlier years, its appeals against the decision for a succeeding year, would be dismissed. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 6,75,000/- was deleted by the CIT(A). The Revenue is in appeal against the said deletion. 6. The Ld. DR for the Revenue pointed out that the Assessing Officer had estimated the expenditure relatable to the earning of income from apple orchard and the addition was made on account of unexplained expenditure whereas the CIT(A) deleted the addition without examining the facts of the case. The Ld. AR for the assessee on the other hand pointed out that there was inconsistency in the order of the Assessing Officer as similar income was accepted in the earlier years by an order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and during the year when the same method was being followed and the facts and circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Officer estimated the expenditure to be incurred for carrying out the agriculture operations and on the calculations as tabulated at page 9 of the assessment order. The assessee was found to have incurred expenditure at with lesser figure and an addition of Rs. 6,75,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer after invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act. The said addition was deleted by the C IT(A) following the Rule of consistency as the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration were found to be identical to the facts in the preceding year and the agriculture income declared by the assessee having been accepted in the preceding year. 8. We are in conformity with the observation of the C IT(A) that where the facts and circumstances are identical the rule of consistency demand that where the income if declared on the similar basis, and were accepted on the same grounds in the earlier years merits to be accepted in the comparable circumstances. We find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C IT Vs. J.K. Charitable Trust (supra). The Assessing Officer vide order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act relating to assessment year 2005-06 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of amount of such expenditure or part thereof, then such expenditure is deemed to be the income of the assessee of the year in which the same had been incurred. The requirement of the section is firstly an expenditure should be found to have been incurred by the assessee and secondly the assessee fails to explain the source of such expenses. When the two conditions are satisfied, the deeming provisions of section 69C of the Act are attracted and addition is to be made in the year to which such expenditure relates. In the case falling u/s 69C of the Act, the condition precedent is that it should be established that the assessee had incurred any expenditure and such establishment of the expenditure should be backed by sufficient evidence and / or material on record. The primary onus is upon the Revenue to establish the same and in case of the failure on the part of the Revenue to prove, the same cannot be taxed as income in the hands of the assessee. In the facts of the present case, we find that the Assessing Officer has failed to bring on record any evidence to establish the assessee to have incurred any expenditure over and above the expenditure claimed by him to have been spent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
