TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ividual. For the assessment year under appeal, the assessee filed her return of income on 30.08.2004 declaring total income at ₹ 3,12,080/- and agricultural income of ₹ 4,50,290/-. The A.O. framed the assessment under section 143(3) on 21.07.2006. Subsequently, the case was re-opened after recording the satisfaction and reason by the A.O. and due approval from the Joint CIT, Vapi Range. The said notice was issued on 28.01.2008. Thereafter after calling necessary details, the A.O. framed the assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) on 24.12.2008, wherein he treated ₹ 3,00,000/- as income from other sources. 3. On appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), it was contended that agricultura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... go trees and 1450 chikoo trees on this land. From year to year the assessee has been regularly disclosing agricultural income by way of sale of mangoes and chikoos and other seasonal crops. Such agricultural income has been accepted by the Department. Even during the course of re-assessment proceedings the assessing officer admitted that, the assessee owns agricultural land with mango trees and chikoo trees. It, therefore, follows that, the assessee did earn agricultural income. The only basis for rejecting the assessee's claim is a statement given by Shri Dilipbhai J. Desai that he did not enter into any agreement with the assessee for plucking of mangoes. As a matter of fact, during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Desai, containing identical contents was provided to assessee for cross examination. 1.3. The Id CIT (A) has erred in holding that the reassessment was based on change of opinion without considering that fact that the reassessment proceedings were on the basic of definite and specific information received by the AO. 2. On that facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 3 lacs without considering the fact that assessee failed to discharge the burden of proving the agriculture income with substantive evidences. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the learned CIT (A) be set aside and that the order of the AO be restored. 6. No one appeared on behalf of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l income. Therefore, she suggested that the addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- deleted by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) be restored. 8. As admitted by the ld. D.R., tax effect in this appeal is less than ₹ 2 lakhs. This appeal of the Revenue is, therefore, not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs.- Concord Pharmaceuticals reported in (2008) 220 CTR (Guj.) 117. 9. Even on merit also, in our opinion, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has given cogent reason for deleting the addition because there is a written agreement available on which signatures of Shri Dilip J. Desai have been admitted by him to be his. His allegation was that his those signa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out considering the aspect of the availability and delivery of goods purchased. In this case, the existence of agricultural produce of such quantities and values has been proved to be existing year after year and hence this factor needs to be appreciated vis- -vis Shri Dilip J. Desai s denial of taking the contract of assessee s orchards. In these circumstances, without going to the controversy whether Shri Dilip J. Desai is telling the truth that he gave the money, but the assessee s claim of receipt of agricultural income per se cannot be outright rejected. Apart from this, one cannot rule out the possibility of Shri Dilip J. Desai taking a stand, as he did, for avoiding his tax liability because in his case, the consequential income woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
