TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 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. The AO has examined Shri Mahendrabhai Dalpatbhai Patel under section 131 of the Act, to whom agricultural produce were claimed to have been sold. However, in his statement, Shri Mahendrabha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icultural income in addition to be 79,837 already accepted as agricultural income. Hence, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 7,37,333 was upheld and relief of Rs. 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 sugarcane @ 637.50 per hectares during period 1990-91 to 2011-12 in India. The learned counsel for the assessee also filed a report for Department of Food and Public Distribution, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Rs. 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 Rs. 8,12,175/-, therefore, considering the expenditure @ 40% of gross income the net income would be at Rs. 4,87,305/- (Rs. 8,12,175/ - Rs. 3,24,870/- = Rs. 4,87,305/-). Further, the AO accepted Rs. 79,837/- agricultural inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 positive concealment of income has not been brought on record, therefore, penalty is not leviable u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We have gone through the case laws relied upon the learned counsel for the assessee. Looking to the facts and....