TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hectares during relevant period and rate of sale @ 130 per quintal. Accordingly, the estimate of sugarcane sale comes to ₹ 8,12,175 [637.50 X 9.80 hectares = 8,12,175]. Beside, this the assessee has also earned income from sale of cotton etc., which is also supported by 7/12 extract and 8A. Therefore, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and taking a holistic view, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee might have earned the Gross agricultural income at ₹ 8,12,175/-, therefore, considering the expenditure @ 40% of gross income the net income would be at ₹ 4,87,305/- (₹ 8,12,175/ - ₹ 3,24,870/- = ₹ 4,87,305/-). Further, the AO accepted ₹ 79,837/- agricultural income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT (A) ) in respect of quantum appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11 and order of CIT (A)-3 Surat dtd. 26.08.2015 in respect of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11. Quantum appeal in I.T.A.No. 2550/Ahd/2013/A.Y.10-11 2. Ground no. 1 2 are against the confirmation of action of the AO in making addition of ₹ 7,37,333 on account of sales of sugarcane as income from unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 3. Succinctly, facts are that the assessee has shown agricultural income of ₹ 9,17,170 for rate purpose only in the return of income. On being explained, the assessee has filed copies of bills of agriculture receipts, i.e. sales of sugarcane cotton and jiru crops. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, it is likely that she is earning some agricultural income as coowner. In view of these facts and circumstances, the ld. CIT (A) has considered an amount of ₹ 1, 00,000 as a reasonable amount of agricultural income in addition to be 79,837 already accepted as agricultural income. Hence, the addition made by the AO of ₹ 7,37,333 was upheld and relief of ₹ 1 Lakh on account of agricultural income was allowed. 5. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has accepted that the assessee has owned 9.80 hectares agricultural land as co-owner. The learned counsel for the assessee filed a chart showing the trend of yield of sugarca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven in para 3 of the table of assessment order. The assessee has also produced Shri Mahendrabhai Patel and Shri Krunalbhai Lad for examination through whom sale of sugarcane was effected. The learned counsel for the assessee has filed a chart-showing yield @ 637.50 per hectares during relevant period and rate of sale @ 130 per quintal. Accordingly, the estimate of sugarcane sale comes to ₹ 8,12,175 [637.50 X 9.80 hectares = 8,12,175]. Beside, this the assessee has also earned income from sale of cotton etc., which is also supported by 7/12 extract and 8A. Therefore, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and taking a holistic view, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee might have earned the Gross agri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found the substantiated in treating the agricultural income of ₹ 7,37,333/-. 10. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal before us. The ld. Counsel contended that the AO has initiated penalty for filing inaccurate particulars of income whereas the AO has levied the penalty for concealment of income, therefore, penalty imposed is invalid in the light of decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Manu Engg. Works [1980] 122 ITR 306 (Guj) and CIT vs. CIT vs. Samson Perinchery [2017] 392 ITR 4 (Bombay) /[2017] 88 taxmann.com 413 (Bombay) and Multivision Infotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 874 (Ahmedabad Tribunal). It was further submitted that the addition sustained is on estimated basis as no p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
