AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 917
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,15,044/- made on account of difference of amount of difference of amount between the share profit from various firms shown in the return of income and copy of accounts. The contention of the assessee that the difference of amount as shown in return of income as share profit from various firms and claimed as exempt income and as shown in the copy of accounts of the various firm, was actually the share in firms prior the accounting for the firm's tax, is not acceptable. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Lucknow has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,51,200/- made on account of income from house property u/s 23 of the income tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the assessee is the owner of two property and had claimed both the house properties as self occupied properties. 2. Apropos ground No.1, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee has filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 8,03,480/- and agricultural income was shown at Rs. 20,00,750/-. The Assessing Officer has noticed that in the joint SB account in the na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deposited by various auctioneers of Orchards from time to time. It was further contended that the Assessing Officer has ignored or rather failed to appreciate the fact that firstly all the people who participate in auction are illiterate and not having any permanent establishment. Further the assessee and his family have been earning agricultural income for more than 30 years and the amount of Rs. 39,31,550/- was part of the total agricultural income earned by two brothers i. E. the assessee and his brother, Shri. Sheik Mohd. Tariq. Moreover, in this year, the income of the mother, Smt. Sagira Khatoon is included, as she had expired and her 20% share has also been included in the income of the assessee and his brother. It was further explained that the Assessing Officer has made addition of the entire deposit in the hands of the assessee whereas 50% of the deposits belong to the brother of the assessee. 5. The ld. CIT(A) re-examined the issue in the light of assessee's contentions and the Income Tax Inspector's report and being convinced with the explanations of the assessee, he deleted the addition. The relevant observations of the ld. CIT(A) are extracted hereunder for the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned in his report the existence of 30 Bighas of irrigated agricultural land. As per the working of the ITI which the appellant has submitted in response o the Remand report vide reply dated 15th May, 2014 the income from mango trees itself works out to Rs. 65,31,250/-. The ITI has also mentioned the existence of the adult trees on the appellant's land. As per order sheet entry dated 22nd April 2014 the appellant was required to file the Report of the Disstt. Horticulture Department regarding produce of mango and its sale rate. The same is also filed along with written submission on 15- 5-2014. As per the said report the income which can be generated from sale of mangoes itself is Rs. 50,16,600/-. Over and above the sale of mangoes the appellants claimed that the revenue generated from other agricultural operations is Rs. 2 to 3 lakhs per annum after deducting the expenses. 12. The appellant in his paper book has also filed the copies of the judgments of the ITAT, Lucknow Bench in his own case as well as his brother who is the co-owner of the lands for A.Y.'s 2006-07 and also the copy of the order the CIT (A)'s for A.Y. 2008-09 in the case of the appellant. On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us the appellant gets relief of Rs. 39,31,550/-." 6. Aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and has placed heavy reliance upon the order of the Assessing Officer whereas the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that this is not the first year in which the assessee has shown agricultural income. The assessee owned Orchards which were auctioned to various auctioneers and the auction money was deposited from time to time in the joint bank account of the assessee with his brother, Shri. Sheik Mohd. Tariq and his brother has also claimed agricultural income for the impugned assessment year at Rs. 20,00,750/- equal to the agricultural income earned by the assessee which shows that both the brothers have earned equal agricultural income and agricultural income shown by the brother of the assessee has not been doubted by the Revenue. It was further contended that the assessee has also placed copy of the revenue record in order to establish the ownership of Orchards and once the assessee owned Orchards, there has to be some agricultural income; whereas the Assessing Officer has outrightly rejected the explanations of the assessee and made addition of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mother in order to establish that the mother was expired during the year and agricultural income earned by her was also deposited in the same accounts of the assessee, as they are the inheritors of their mother. It is also noticed that the assessee has filed written submission before the ld. CIT(A) on which remand report was called by the ld. CIT(A) and thereafter on the remand report comments were also sought from the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), while adjudicating the issue, has taken into account the report of the Tehsildar, Malihabad, Lucknow and report of the Udhyan Adhikari, Lucknow with respect to the production of Mangoes from these Orchards and also report of the Income Tax Inspector. Keeping in view the reports, the ld. CIT(A) has held that no addition is called for, as the amount deposited in the joint bank account is agricultural income earned by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has also observed in his order that even after completion of the assessment, independent enquiry was also conducted in respect of receipt from the agriculture produces by the then Assessing Officer through an Inspector. Having taken note of all these facts, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition. Dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He has furnished the complete details in this regard. It was further contended before the ld. CIT(A) that on making addition, the Assessing Officer has ignored, rather failed to appreciate the fact that the amount of Rs. 29,80,754/- claimed as exempted income in the return of income is actually share in the firm prior to accounting for the firm's tax and in effect it does not make any difference, as actually the share income from firm is tax free as per the provisions of section 10(2A) of the Act and moreover that amount of Rs. 29,80,754/- has not been credited in the books to invoke the mischief of section 68 of the Act. 12. The ld. CIT(A) re-examined the claim of the assessee in the light of assessee's contentions and being convinced with it he deleted the addition. The relevant observations of the ld. CIT(A) are extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:- "Considering the finding given by the AO in assessment order as well as the remand report and written submission of the appellant filed during appellate proceedings. I find that the AO was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 9,15,044/- under the head of unexplained cash credit u/s 68. The appellant did not hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ompound, Lucknow and Plumeria Homes, Flat No.701-K Tower, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Both the prosperities has claimed as self occupied. In reply dated 5.9.2012, the assessee has claimed property situated at Flat No.1, Tower-11, Metro City, Paper Mill Compound, Lucknow as his residential property and treated as his SOP and the other property situated at Plumeria Homes, Flat No.701-K Tower, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow is considered for the computation of ALV under section 23 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has considered monthly rent of this property at Rs. 18,000/- considering the area and locality of the property and accordingly calculated the ALV at Rs. 2.16 lakhs and after allowing 30% standard deduction of Rs. 64,800/- and interest on borrowed capital as claimed by the assessee at Rs. 1.50 lakhs, made an addition of Rs. 1,200/- as income from house property. 16. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with the submission that both the properties are self-occupied properties and the ld. CIT(A) has given a finding on different facts and granted relief of Rs. 1,51,200/-. The relevant observations of the ld. CIT(A) are extracted hereu....