Shri Arjanbhai Kadwabhai Harnia v. The Income Tax Officer-Ward-8(2)
[Citation -2007-LL-0713-20]

Citation 2007-LL-0713-20
Appellant Name Shri Arjanbhai Kadwabhai Harnia
Respondent Name The Income Tax Officer-Ward-8(2)
Court ITAT-Ahmedabad
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 13/07/2007
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags agricultural income
Bot Summary: The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed necessary evidences of size of family and the agriculture income in the native place before the AO, Ward-8(1), Surat. The assessee has filed the details of size of his family as well as evidence regarding having earned agriculture income at his native place which was not considered by the AO due to some communication gap as the information was filed by the assessee with AO, Ward-8(1) and the assessment was framed by the AO, Ward-8(2), Surat. Considering the copies of the evidences filed by the assessee regarding the agriculture income and the fact that the assessee belongs to lower income group, we hold that the ends of justice shall be met, if the addition on this count is restricted to Rs.20,000/- as against Rs.60,000/- sustained by -2- ITA No.1070/Ahd/2007 the CIT(A), and accordingly, the Ground No.1 of the assessee is partly allowed. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was doing diamond labour and brokerage for the past number of years and was 37 years of age during the relevant year and this is the first year of the assessment of the assessee and the opening balance of Rs.40,000/- could not be said to be excessive. Considering the totality of the facts of the cases, we are of the view that the opening balance declared at Rs.40,000/- by the assessee could not be considered as unjustified or excessive, and accordingly, no addition on this count was called for, which was accordingly deleted and the Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. The addition made by the AO was sustained by the CIT(A) by observing that the assessee could produce few vouchers with regard to brokerage income received by the assessee and these vouchers were found katchha vouchers without showing proper details of quantum of work carried out for such brokerage income and most of the vouchers did not have any date etc. Accordingly, the addition made on this count is deleted and the AO is directed to assess the business income as declared by the assessee, and the Ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed.


, , D , IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, D BENCH [ . . , , . . , , , BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No.1070/Ahd/2007 [Asstt.Year : 2002-2003] Arjanbhai Kadwabhai Harnia /Vs. ITO, Ward-8(2) A-25, Mangal Group Society Surat. Ved Road, Surat. ( / Appellant) ( / Respondent) [ / : Shri Yogesh B. Shah Assessee by / : Shri B.L. Yadav, Sr.DR Revenue by / : 2nd April, 2012 Date of Hearing / : 18-5-2012 Date of Pronouncement / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: This is assessee s appeal directed against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Surat for assessment year 2002-2003. 2. ground no.1 of assessee s appeal reads as under: 1. ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating evidences submitted regarding agricultural income and confirming addition of Rs.60,000/- made on account of house hold expenses. ITA No.1070/Ahd/2007 3. learned counsel for assessee submitted that assessee has filed necessary evidences of size of family and agriculture income in native place before AO, Ward-8(1), Surat. He submitted that there was some communication gap and therefore same was not communicated to AO, Ward-8(2), Surat and there was no case for non-compliance on part of assessee. He submitted that considering agriculture income, household expenses shown at Rs.20,000/- for lower income class of person was justified. learned DR has opposed submissions of learned counsel of assessee. He submitted that number of opportunities were given to assessee to explain its case by AO. He referred to relevant paragraphs of orders of AO and CIT(A) in support of case of Revenue. 4. We have considered submissions of both parties and have perused orders of AO and CIT(A). We find that assessee is individual and is doing diamond labour work and some brokerage therein. total income shown by assessee from diamond labour and brokerage was Rs.72,510/-. assessee has filed details of size of his family as well as evidence regarding having earned agriculture income at his native place which was not considered by AO due to some communication gap as information was filed by assessee with AO, Ward-8(1) and assessment was framed by AO, Ward-8(2), Surat. Considering copies of evidences filed by assessee regarding agriculture income and fact that assessee belongs to lower income group, we hold that ends of justice shall be met, if addition on this count is restricted to Rs.20,000/- as against Rs.60,000/- sustained by -2- ITA No.1070/Ahd/2007 CIT(A), and accordingly, Ground No.1 of assessee is partly allowed. 5. Ground No.2 of assessee s appeal reads as under: 2. ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.40,000/- made on account of opening balance of Rs.40,000/- without taking into account age and past history of appellant and not applied ordinary prudence and diligence to facts of case. 6. learned counsel for assessee submitted that assessee was doing diamond labour and brokerage for past number of years and was 37 years of age during relevant year and this is first year of assessment of assessee and opening balance of Rs.40,000/- could not be said to be excessive. learned DR has relied on orders of AO and CIT(A). 7. We have considered submissions of both parties and have perused orders of AO and CIT(A). We find that assessee was doing diamond labour and brokerage for past number of years, which could not be controverted by AO. assessee was 37 years of age during relevant period and relevant assessment year 2002-2003 was first assessment year of assessee. Considering totality of facts of cases, we are of view that opening balance declared at Rs.40,000/- by assessee could not be considered as unjustified or excessive, and accordingly, no addition on this count was called for, which was accordingly deleted and Ground No.2 of assessee is allowed. 8. Ground No.3 of assessee s appeal reads as under: -3- ITA No.1070/Ahd/2007 3. ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming estimate of business income at Rs.1,00,000/- made by AO. 9. We have heard both parties and have perused orders of AO and CIT(A). We find that assessee has declared its business income at Rs.72,510/- and AO estimated sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. addition made by AO was sustained by CIT(A) by observing that assessee could produce few vouchers with regard to brokerage income received by assessee and these vouchers were found katchha vouchers without showing proper details of quantum of work carried out for such brokerage income and most of vouchers did not have any date etc. In our considered view, this reasoning of CIT(A) is not sustainable. For individual, who was having very small income from brokerage, it could not be expected that vouchers produced by assessee should contain full and proper details of quantum of work carried out for which brokerage was earned. There is no material brought on record to suggest that assessee has acquired any asset or has made some investments during relevant period. In these facts of case, we hold that estimate made by AO of business income of assessee is without any evidence. Accordingly, addition made on this count is deleted and AO is directed to assess business income as declared by assessee, and Ground No.3 of assessee is allowed. 10. In result, assessee s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on date mentioned hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- ( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( . . /G.C. GUPTA) . . /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VICE-PRESIDENT -4- Shri Arjanbhai Kadwabhai Harnia v. Income Tax Officer-Ward-8(2)
Report Error