TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be accepted. The ld. CIT (A) has taken a reasonable view in estimating the expenditure at 15%. - ITA No. 868/JP/2019 - - - Dated:- 1-11-2019 - SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate) For the Respondent : Shri Abhishek Sharma (Addl.CIT) ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.05.2019 of ld. CIT (Appeals)-2, Jaipur for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition of ₹ 2,80,830/- out of ₹ 8,37,900/- made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) who has granted part relief to the assessee by estimating the expenditure at 15% as against 30% estimated by the AO. 3. Before the Tribunal, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in agricultural activity. Return of income was filed on 15.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. Nil and agricultural income of ₹ 27,92,999/-. The learned Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23.12.2017 determining total income at ₹ 8,37,900/- inter alia making the addition of ₹ 8,37,900/- by treating the agricultural income as non-agricultural. The ld. A/R submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land owned by the assessee was more fertile and capable of yielding 50% more crops in comparison an average land as reported by the Tehsildar. But he did not accept the contention of the assessee. This shows the variation on working of agricultural income on estimate basis. The ld. A/R relied upon the following decisions :- Uma Charan Shaw Brothers 37 ITR 271 (SC) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P H) CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) State vs. Gulzari Lal Tondon 1979 AIR 1382 (SC) J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra 1979 AIR 1537 (SC) 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that it is well known fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered this issue in para 2.3 to 2.3.3 as under :- 2.3. I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. Ground No. 01 and 02 are being taken up together which are interrelated. During the year under consideration, assessee declared gross agricultural income of ₹ 32,72,999/- and after claiming expenses of ₹ 1,38,120/- declared net agricultural income of ₹ 31,34,879/- including ₹ 4,80,000/- as sale of trees being other sources. Assessing Officer concluded that assessee has claimed less expenses and looking to short rainfall the total production of agriculture crops could not fetch the price as declared by the assessee. Accordingly, Assessing Officer esti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
