Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/545/2008 3/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 545 of 2008
=========================================================
THE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant(s)
Versus
VIJAYSINH
R ZALA - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MANISH R BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for
Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 08/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)
1 The
Appellant-Revenue has proposed the following three questions :
?S[A] Whether the Appellate
Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed
by the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.5,03,090/- made by the
Assessing Officer in respect of alleged agriculture income (sale of
flowers) treated as income from undisclosed sources?
[B] Whether the Appellate
Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed
by the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.3,10,500/- made by the
Assessing Officer on account of agriculture income (sale of safad
musali) treated as income from undisclosed income?
[C] Whether the Appellate
Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed
by the CIT(A) in not upholding the addition made by the Assessing
Officer by invoking the provisions of Section 145, since the books of
accounts of the assessee was found to be unreliable???
2. The
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Revenue does not
press proposed question No.3 hence the Court is required to examine
only as to whether question Nos. 1 and 2 arise out of impugned order
of Tribunal dated 18.05.2007.
3. The
respondent-assessee, an individual, returned net agricultural income
of Rs.4,19,242/-. As against that the Assessing Officer determined
the total income at a sum of Rs.8,13,590/- comprised of two items :
[i] Rs.5,03,090/- and [ii] Rs.3,10,500/- by treating the same as
income from undisclosed sources. The learned Counsel has reiterated
the reasons which weighed with the Assessing Officer in doubting the
genuineness of the sales made by the respondent assessee in relation
to the two items, the first one being sale of roses and the second
one being sale of Safed Musli.
4. As
can be seen from the record when the matter was carried in Appeal
before Commissioner (Appeals) by the respondent-assessee the Appeal
was allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) by observing as under :
?S6.3. I have carefully
perused the assessment order, submissions made and arguments of the
AR advanced on behalf of the appellant. There is force in the
arguments advanced and submissions made. The appellant has
demonstrated the possession of agriculture land, erection of
greenhouse for farming of roses, cultivation of safed musali
through the government revenue records, photographs and related
documents for expenditure towards agricultural operations and
vouchers for sale. The appellant has also furnished a few
confirmation letters for sales. The para 3.5 of the assessment order
is indicative of confirmation for purchases of roses. Even one
florist had confirmed the purchase roses from the appellant in his
self-deposition. The A.O.has considered the issues on subjective
consideration. It is settled law that the A.O. is not bound by
technical rule of evidence. The circumstantial evidences have to be
appreciated. The A.O. has proceeded on mere suspicion and on
irrelevant consideration. There was no material evidence to suggest
earning of income from business or profession. The appellant was not
obliged to maintain books of account for agricultural income and
there was no application of section 145. On facts, the judicial
pronouncements relied upon by the A.O. has no relevance. Considering
the totality of facts, I am of the considered view that there was no
justification in invoking the provisions of section 145 and making
the additions of entire sale proceeds of roses and safed musali.
Therefore, the additions of Rs.5,03,090/- and Rs.3,10,500/- made by
the A.O. as income from undisclosed sources are hereby delted. The
net income of Rs.4,19,242/- should be considered as agriculture
income. These grounds of appeal are thus allowed??.
5. This
order of Commissioner (Appeals) has been upheld by the Tribunal. As
can be seen from impugned order of the Tribunal, more particularly
paragraph No.4 of the order, the entire Appeal has been decided on
appreciation of facts and evidence on record, more particularly
evidence found at page Nos. 7 to 48 and 50 to 58A and other pages of
the Paper-book filed before the Tribunal. There is nothing on record
to dislodge the said findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal upon
appreciation of evidence.
6. In
the circumstances, no question of law, much less a substantial
question of law, as proposed or otherwise, can be said to arise out
of impugned order of Tribunal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(D.A.Mehta,
J.) (B.N.Mehta, J.)
M.M.BHATT
Top