9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to make delete the addition to the extent of Rs. 66,825/- and addition to the tune of Rs. 15,525/- is sustained. The appeal is partly allowed. Addition in respect of income in the name of Smt. Veena Mishra/wife of assessee - protective addition made in the assessee s hand - as observed that she was a house wife and did not have any independent sources of income and investment and therefore in his opinion, the income of Smt. Veena Mishra was belonging to Dr. Jagannath Mishra so the income was assessed in the hands of assessee whereas the same was added protectively in the hands of Smt. Veena Mishra - HELD THAT:- Smt. Veena Mishra is an independently assessed to income tax and wealth tax. Besides we also note that the assessee Smt. Veena Mishra is also co-owner of the land and land measuring 4.72 acres belonged to Smt. Veena Mishra out of total family holding of 60 acres. AO has made the addition in the hands of the assessee only on the basis of presumptions and assumptions without any substantive basis and also without bringing any evidences on record to the contrary to justify the inclusion of the assessee s income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. The total agricultural land holdings of the family were 60 acres out of which 33.75 acre is treated as belonging to the HUF, 22.80 acres to Dr. Jagannath Mishra and 4.72 acres to Smt. Veena Mishra wife of Shri Jagannath Mishra. According to AO, on the basis of reports received from ITO, Saharsa and also the information furnished by the assessee, came to the conclusion that the assessee has not filed any evidences qua agricultural operation and also in respect of expenses incurred. The AO in para 4.4 noted that inspector deputed to conduct an on the spot enquiry also gave a report that expenses to be treated at 50% of the gross agricultural receipt which according to AO was not backed with any facts and figures. Thereafter, the AO came to conclusion that it would be reasonable if from gross agricultural revenue, 70% was allowed towards expenses and 30% was treated as agricultural income. Accordingly income was estimated by the AO based on the yield estimated by the Inspector in his report as discussed hereafter. Sale of Paddy Rs. 400 per Mann with average yield per acre of land was 24 Mann aggregating to Rs. 9,600 (24 x 400) (Inspector has estimated average yield of w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less to say that if this rate is applied in respect of wheat, from paddy and wheat the same would be worked out as under: Paddy 24 x 400 = 9,600 x 45% = 4,320/- Wheat 12 x 300 =3,600 x 45% = 1,620/- Total Rs. 5,940/- The total agricultural income in respect of 33.75 acre of land would be 5940 x 33.75 = 2,00,475/-. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to make delete the addition to the extent of Rs. 66,825/- and addition to the tune of Rs. 15,525/- is sustained. The appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 126/Pat/2023 for AY 2000-01. 6. Issue raised in ground nos. 1 to 5 are general in nature and does not need any specific adjudication. 7. Issue raised in ground no. 6 to 8 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,45,602/- by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of income from undisclosed sources on account of excess income shown by the assessee in respect of agricultural income. We have already decided the similar issue in ITA No. 125/Pat/2023 for AY 2000-01 wherein we have partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by estimating the expenses @ 55% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we are of the view that the issue is required to be examined at the level of AO. Accordingly, the same is restored to the file of AO and the AO is directed to look into the matter as per facts available on record and decide the same in accordance with law. Ground no. 17 is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Issue raised in ground no. 18 is consequential to the main grounds. Aimilarly issue raised in ground no. 19 to 21 needs no specific adjudication. Accordingly the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No. 127/Pat/2023 for AY 2001-02. 14. The issue raised in the appeal in ground no. 6 to 9 are similar to one as decided by us in ground no. 6 to 8 in ITA No. 125/Pat/2023 for AY 2000-01. Therefore our decision in ITA No. 126/Pat/2023 for AY 2000-01 would, mutatis mutandis, apply to ground no. 6 to 8 this appeal as well. Accordingly, the grounds are partly allowed. 15. The issue raised in the appeal in ground no. 10 is similar to one as decided by us in ground no. 9 to 15 in ITA No. 126/Pat/2023 for AY 2000-01. Therefore our decision in ITA No. 126/Pat/2023 for AY 2000-01 would, mutatis mutandis, apply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pparent from the Wealth Tax returns for AY 1986-87 to 1990-91 and orders u/s 16 of the Wealth Tax Act which are available in the paper book. Similarly the orders u/s 143(1) of the Act for AY 1986-87 to 1988-89 are available in the paper book which sufficiently substantiates that the assessee was having her own income and assets which were accepted by the Department in the earlier assessment years. Similarly during the year, the assessee has earned a long term capital gain of Rs. 1,87,944/- which was claimed as exempt u/s 54 of the Act on sale of property. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the AO that the assessee was simply a house wife and all the income of the assessee were belonging to the husband of the assessee was without any substantive evidences on record. Accordingly, we hold that income has to be assessed in the hands of the assessee only. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,13,040/- on protective basis is sustained in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, ground nos. 9 to 15 are allowed. 23. Issue raised in ground no. 16 to 20 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication. ITA Nos. 131 132/Pat/ 2023 for AY 2001-02 and 2002-03. 24. The issue rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
