9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered opinion, the AO has disbelieved the statement of the assessee and the nature of trend in the agriculture sector wherein proper sale records could not be maintained by the small time agriculturist. For all these reasons, the addition made by the A.O. u/s. 68 is not sustainable in law - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 03/Rjt/2022 - - - Dated:- 6-1-2023 - Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sagar Shah, A.R. For the Revenue : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Appellate order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as NFAC ), arising out the Assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Senior Citizen deriving income from the machinery hiring services, Income from House Property, Income from other sources and Agricult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove judgment is not related to the income generated by the farmers. Further the assessee has shown the gross receipt of agriculture income in the Return of Income without considering expenses incurred to earn the above agriculture income. Therefore 30% of expenses and gross receipt of agriculture income is added as the unexplained expenses u/s. 69C of the Act. Further the assessee submitted bills of sale of agriculture amounting to Rs. 12,93,117/- only. Thus the assessee failed to produce the sale bills of crops for the balance amount of Rs. 4,02,239/-. In the absence of the proof/evidence of sale of crops of Rs. 4,02,239/-, the same is added back as the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. Thus determined the total income of the assessee as Rs. 10,38,996/- and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an apepal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal was migrated to NFAC and the assessee filed his submission before the NFAC Centre. After considering the submissions, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC partly allowed assessee s appeal as follows: 4.1 I have carefully considered the assessment ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s bad in law as well as on facts and required to be quashed. (3) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,02,239/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without going into the details facts and evidences placed on record and thus, the order is bad in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition to that extent. (4) Based on facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Circle-2(2) Jamnagar, has erred in law as well as on facts while not observing the rule of judicial consistency while deciding the case of the appellant. Thus, the order passed is biased and against the law and required to be quashed. (5) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi as well as the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Circle-2(2) Jamnagar, has erred in law as well as on facts while ignoring the judicial precedent of the Jurisdictional Civil Court relied upon by the appellant which squarely ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.R. Mr. Sagar Shah appearing for the assessee submitted that Ld. NFAC uphold the addition of rs. 4,02,239/- without going into the details of facts and evidences placed on record. Though the Assessing Officer stated that the Civil Court Judgment is on land acquisition case of Acquiring agricultural land by GIDC, but in that judgment, the fertility capacity of the agricultural lands is determined as Rs. 45,000/- per bighas, applying the same ratio and assessee s holding of 96 bighas of and which work out to Rs. 43,20,000/- but whereas the assessee had earned only Rs. 16,95,356/-. Based on the old age factor of the assessee as well as doing the agricultural activities with the help of labourers to whom the income portion was offered as consideration, as against their efforts/labour in assessee s agricultural land by producing the Cluster Beans and Cumin. Further the assessee could not produce bills of sale of agriculture produce for the balance amount of Rs. 4,02,239/-. It is impossible to maintain entire bills on sale of agriculture produce, since most of the people involved in the agriculture sector are illiterate and it is not feasible to have record of very small amount of tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
