9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r want of corroborative evidence. Before us assessee vehemently relied upon the order of co-ordinate Benches of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Narendrasinh Anoopsinh Jadeja (HUF) [ 2010 (3) TMI 1273 - ITAT AHMEDABAD ] and also coordinate Bench of Chandigarh in the case of Shri Karanbir Singh Sandhu [ 2010 (3) TMI 1272 - ITAT CHANDIGARH ] We find that coordinate bench of Tribunal in Narendrasinh Anoopsinh Jadeja (HUF) [ 2010 (3) TMI 1273 - ITAT AHMEDABAD ] similar agriculture expenses were restricted to 30%. Therefore respectfully following the said judicial precedent, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of agricultural expenses to the extent of 30% in place of 40%. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the disallowance of expenses. - ITA No.255/SRT/2019 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2022 - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Mehul Shah, C.A For the Revenue : Shri J.K. Chandani Sr-DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-3, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on coming to know about the dismissal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A) in April 2019. The assessee has a good case on merit and required consideration, if the delay is not condoned, it would cause irreparable loss to the assessee. The assessee prayed for condoning the delay. 3. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that the delay in filing of appeal was neither intentional, deliberate nor with mala fide intention. The real fact is that the assessee was not aware about the dismissal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A). The assessee received the order of penalty under section 271(1)(c) dated 28.04.2019 and realised that the appeal in the quantum assessment is dismissed. The assessee came to know only by the assistance of his Ld. Counsel on logging into the e-filing portal that appeal of assessee in quantum assessment has already been dismissed. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee has a good case on merit and is likely to succeeds, if the delay of condoned and the assessee is allowed to contest the appeal on merit. In fact, assessee will not be benefited by filing the appeal belatedly. To support his contention, the Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. We are not convinced with mere objection of the revenue, unless the revenue shows that the order of ld CIT(A) was served on the assessee within reasonable time, when the assessee specifically stated in his application that the order impugned in the appeal was not served on the assessee. 7. The Hon ble Apex Court in Collector of Land Acquisition Vs Mst Katiji (supra), while condoning the delay in filing appeal held that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserve to be preferred, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence or on account of mala fides. The litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting delay, in fact he runs a serious risk. Further, the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in Jayvansing N Vaghela Vs ITO (supra) it was held that unless there is gross negligence or mala fides intention, delay in filing appeal to be condones. Considering the aforesaid facts and legal position that there was no mala fides on the part of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer worked out the disallowance of expenses of Rs.6,74,710/- and treated the same under the head income from other sources . 10. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submission of assessee is recorded in para-7 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). On the addition of Rs.2,20,057/-, the assessee submitted that assessee has received said agricultural income on sale of sugarcane to Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udhyog Mandli Ltd. in cash on 13.09.2012. And on the disallowance of agricultural expenses, the assessee submitted that he is a member of sugar factory during the relevant year, the total sale of Rs.26,97,150/- and the total expenses was at Rs.4,04,150/- and thus net agricultural income of Rs.22,93,000/- which was shown in the capital account and for the purpose of calculation in computation of income. The Assessing Officer treated the expenses as insufficient so he worked out the expenses of Rs.6,74,710/-. The assessee submitted that he is a member of sugar factory and sugar factory has provided all expenses like seeds, fertilizer, medicine, cutting of labour etc. and that assessee paid normal expenses. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) after con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash . We find that assessee failed to substantiate by any documentary evidence that any amount was received in cash from Shri Khedut Sahakari Khand Udhyog Mandli Ltd. Thus, we do not find any merit in the ground of appeal raised by assessee, hence, we affirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). This ground No1 of assessee s appeal is dismissed. 15. Ground No.2 relates to disallowances of expense on agricultural income. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee is a member of various sugars Mandali/ factories and various expenses were incurred by such sugar Mandali. The ld AR for the assessee submits that disallowance of 40% is a higher side and various coordinate benches of Tribunal estimated similar expenses ranging from 20-30% of gross total receipt on agricultural income. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad Benches B in the case of Narendrasinh Anopsinh Jadeja (HUF) Vs Income Tax Officer, in ITA No.3951/AHD/ 2007 for AY 2004- 05 dated 22.03.2010 restricted the similar disallowance of expenses @ 30% against disallowance @ 40% estimated by Assessing Officer. The ld AR for the assessee also relied on the decision of Chandigarh Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
