9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO has treated the made addition of Rs. 82,350/- by estimating the gross agricultural income and calculating the net agriculture income @ 30% of gross income and thus making the addition of the balance amount as unexplained income. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an HUF with its karta Dr. Jagannath Mishra who is a former Chief Minister of Bihar. The assessee derived income from salary as well as income from agricultural operation. The assessee filed return of income on 29.12.2000 showing a total income of Rs. 90,006.93 and net agricultural income of Rs. 2,16,000/-. Besides the assessee had long term capital loss of Rs. 56,270/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly issued and served upon the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has shown agricultural income from agricultural operation on land measuring 33.75 acres at Dahgama. According to AO, the assessee has not furnished any evidences qua agricultural expenses having been incurred for undertaking the agricultural operation despite several opportunities having been given to the assessee. The total agricultural land holdings of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eat nor in respect of agricultural expenses incurred by the assessee. Therefore, the AO relied on the report of the AO, Saharsa and also the information made available by the assessee during the assessment proceedings in AY 1996-07 to 1999-2000. The AO noted that the assessee has not furnished any evidences qua his claim. In para 4.4. the AO also rejected the report of the Inspector who estimated agricultural expenses at 50% of the total receipt and he rather treated 70% as expenses and 30% as net income from agriculture. Thereby making an addition towards undisclosed source. He gave a mode of computation in para 4.4 of the assessment order wherein he computed the income from paddy at Rs. 9,600/- per acre whereas income from wheat at Rs. 3,600/- per acre. After applying the rate of 30% the net income was estimated at 3,960/- in FY 1999-2000. In our opinion, the said calculation of AO was not based on any scientific formula or facts on record. Therefore, in our opinion, it would be reasonable and fair estimation of net agricultural income if both net profit rate of 45% is applied and 55% is treated as agricultural expenses. Needless to say that if this rate is applied in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h are available in the paper book, we find that the 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. Therefore, the 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 in the husband's hand. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) as the same is based upon in correction assumption and appreciation of facts and accordingly can not be sustained. At the same time, we would like to mention that this income is to be assessed in the hands of Smt. Veena Mishra. Therefore the addition made, is accordingly, directed to be deleted by setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A). The ground is allowed. 11. In ground no. 17 that the assessee has assailed the AO has erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 80L of Rs. 12,000/- from the total income which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 8 this appeal as well. Accordingly, the grounds are partly allowed. 19. The issue raised in the appeal in ground no.9 to 15 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 to ground no.9 to 15 this appeal as well. Accordingly, the grounds are allowed. ITA No. 130/Pat/2023 for 2000-01. 20. Issue raised in ground no. 1 to 5 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication. 21. Issue raised in ground no. 6 to 8 is similar to one as decided by us 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 to this appeal as well. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 22. Issue raised in ground no. 9 to 15 relates to protective addition made in the assessee's hand of Rs. 1,81,930/- whereas the substantive addition made in the hands of the assessee's husband Shri Jagannath Mishra. We have already decided the issue in ground no. 9 to 15 in ITA No. 126/Pat/2023 for AY 2000-01 wherein we have held that the assessee is having agricultural land of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
