Sri K. Venkatesh, Mysore v. ITO, Mysore

ITA 955/BANG/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 95521114 RSA 2009
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 955/BANG/2009
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant Sri K. Venkatesh, Mysore
Respondent ITO, Mysore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 26-02-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 05-10-2009
Judgment Text
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE DR. O.K NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.955/BAN G/2009 (ASST. YEAR 2006-07) SHRI K VENKATESH SRI VENKATESHWARA RICE MILLS KITTUR POST PERIYAPATNA TALUK. . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3) MYSORE. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. DINESH ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SWATI S PATIL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX O R D E R PER DR. O.K NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006-07. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MYSORE DATED 18.8.09. THIS APPEAL ARISES O UT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT 1961. ITA NO.955/BANG/20 09 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE COST OF A SITE SOLD BY HIM AT RS.6 LAKHS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ADOPTED THE COST AT RS.5 LAKHS ON THE GRO UND THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE INCLUDING COPY OF SALE DEED WA S PRODUCED BEFORE HIM TO SUPPORT THE COST OF RS.6 LAKHS CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FIRST APPEAL THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE COST OF RS.6 LAKHS AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE BU T COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH AS NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY H IM. ADOPTING A VIA MEDIA THE CIT(A) REVISED THE COST OF THE PROPE RTY AT RS.5.5 LAKHS. IT IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50 000/ - SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FIRST GRO UND IN HIS APPEAL THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE ENTIRE C OST OF RS.6 LAKHS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RETURNED AGRICULTURAL INCO ME OF RS.4 50 000/-. THIS WAS MODIFIED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO RS.2 50 000/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT PRODUCED COMPLETE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR THE EXPENSES INCURR ED. IN FIRST APPEAL THE CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE REMAND REPOR T OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSESSING AUTHORITY MODIFIED THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME TO RS.3 LAKHS AS AGAINST RS.2 50 000/- ESTIMATED BY THE ASS ESSING AUTHORITY ITA NO.955/BANG/20 09 - 3 - AND RS.4 50 000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS DI SALLOWANCE IS THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE US. 4. WE HEARD SHRI P DINESH THE COUNSEL APPEARING FO R THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SWATHI S PATIL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE. 5. REGARDING THE COST OF THE PLOT SOLD BY THE ASSES SEE WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO SUPP ORT HIS CLAIM THAT THE COST OF THE PLOT SHOULD BE RS.6 LAKHS. THE CIT (A) HAS REASONABLY ESTIMATED THE COST AT RS.5 50 000/- WHICH IS CONFI RMED. THE FIRST GROUND FAILS. 6. REGARDING THE SECOND GROUND OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NO CASE AGAINST TH E FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED SUBSTANTIAL EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL L AND AND HE HAD IN FACT EARNED GOOD AMOUNT BY WAY OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS ALSO NO CASE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AT ALL. IN FACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO.955/BANG/20 09 - 4 - MAINTAINED ROUGH ACCOUNT BOOK EVEN THOUGH THE ENTR IES WERE NOT VERY MUCH LEGIBLE. BY READING THE CIRCUMSTANCES TOGETHER WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED SKELETON ACCOUNTS TO SUPPOR T HIS AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED BILLS I N SUPPORT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES. IT SEEMS THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSES SING AUTHORITY IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED A FORMAL AND A PROP ER SET OF ACCOUNTS. 7. WHEN WE VIEW THE MATTER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES EX PLAINED ABOVE WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE CI T(A) IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4 LAKHS. BUT ANY HOW THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(1). THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4 50 000/- FOR THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIND THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IT WOULD BE FAIR TO ACCEPT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.4 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO ACCE PT AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.4 LAKHS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.955/BANG/20 09 - 5 - 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY THE 26 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010 AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (DR. O.K NARAYANAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT VMS. COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF 7..GF ITAT NEW DELHI. BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALO RE.