Sri. Kalki Kodandarami Reddy, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

CO 28/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6934 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Tax effect
• Section: 234B; 2

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES A BEFORE SHRI N K SAINI, ACCOUNANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ASST. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 446/BANG/2011 1999-2000 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), BANGALORE. SRI KALKI KODANDARAMI REDDY, #547, 3 RD BLOCK, 2 ND STAGE, 1 ST MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BANGAKLORE-560010. PA NO. ACKPR6566J 447/BANG/2011 2000-2001 -DO- -DO- 448/BANG/2011 2003-2004 -DO- -DO- 449/BANG/2011 2006-2007 -DO- -DO- 450/BANG/2011 2007-2008 -DO- -DO- CO NO.27/B/11 (IN ITA NO.447/B/11) 2000-2001 SRI KALKI KODANDARAMI REDDY, #547, 3 RD BLOCK, 2 ND STAGE, 1 ST MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BANGAKLORE-560010. PA NO.ACKPR6566J INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), BANGALORE. CO NO.28/B/11 (IN ITA NO.448/B/11) 2003-04 -DO- -DO- DATE OF HEARING : 27.02.20 12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.03.2012 REVENUE BY : SHRI SARAVANAN, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V SRINIVASAN, C.A. O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE ARE SEVEN APPEALS (I) FIVE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE; AND (II) ANOTHER TWO CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED OR DER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-I, PAGE 2 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 2 BANGALORE DATED 1.2.2011. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 1999-00, 2000-01, 2003-04, 2006-07 AND 2007-08. I. ITA NOS.446,447,449&450/11-AYS:99-00,00-01,06-07 & 07-08( REVENUE): 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SIX IDENTICAL GROUNDS IN THE ABOVE CASES. GROUND NOS.1, 5 & 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NO SP ECIFIC ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR; HENCE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. IN THE REMAINING THREE GROUNDS, THE IDENTICAL ISSUE RAISED BEING THAT THE LD. CIT ( A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,13,536/-, RS.10,87,5 50/-, RS.12,00,350/- AND RS.22,93,920/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-00,2000 .01, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. II. ITA NO.448/11 AY 2003-04 BY THE REVENUE: 2.1. FOR THE AY 2003-04, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED NI NE GROUNDS, OUT OF WHICH, GROUND NOS.1, 8 & 9 BEING GENERAL NATURE AND NO SPECIFIC ISSUES INVOLVED, THEY DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE REFORMULATED AS UNDER: GROUND NOS:2,3 & 4 : THE CIT (A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF R S.12,97,870/- FROM THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURC ES; & GROUND NOS:5, 6 & 8: THE CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.39,13,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER SOURCES. PAGE 3 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 3 III. CO NOS: 27 & 28/11 AYS 2000-01 & 2003-04 BY THE A SSESSEE: 2.2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE AND FOUR CROSS O BJECTIONS FOR THE AYS 2000-01 AND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY, OUT OF WHICH G ROUND NOS.1 AND 5 & 1 AND 4 FOR THE AYS 00-01 AND 03-04 BEING GENERAL I N NATURE, THEY DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. 2.2.1. CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 23 4C OF THE ACT IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE (GROUND NOS. 4 AND 3 FOR THE AYS 2000-01 AND 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY) AND, THEREFORE, TH ESE GROUNDS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED AS SUCH. 2.2.2. GROUND NO.2 FOR THE AY 2000-01 - REASSESSME NT BAD IN LAW AND VOID-AB-INITIO FOR WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION E TC., - WAS NOT PRESSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS DISM ISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 2.2.3. IN THE REMAINING GROUNDS 3 & 2 FOR THE AYS 2000-01 AND 2003- 04, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE CIT (A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,06,271/- AND RS.5,08,660/-RESPECTIVELY IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 3. AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE IDENTICAL AND RATHER INTER-LINKED PERTAINING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, THEY WERE HEARD, CONSIDERED AND DISPOSED OFF, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, IN THIS COMMON ORDER. PAGE 4 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 4 I. ITA NOS.446,447,449&450/11-AYS:99-00,00-01,06-07& 0 7-08 (REVENUE): 4. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE ISSUES, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, HAD CLAIMED THAT HE WAS CU LTIVATING AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN NELLORE DISTRICT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TO THE EXTENT OF 39.69 ACRES, OUT OF WHICH, LANDS TO THE EXTENT OF 15.13 ACRES OWNED BY H IM AND THE BALANCE LANDS WERE TAKEN ON LEASE. IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT HE HAD RAISED BANANA AND SUGARCANE CROPS ON THE ENTIRE LANDS. 4.1. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE RELEVANT RECORDS TH AT THE ISSUES TAKEN UP FOR SUBSTANTIVE VERIFICATION AND DISCUSSIO N IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AY 2003-04 AND THE RATIO OF CON CLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE AO HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR THE REMAINING ASSESSMEN T YEARS UNDER DISPUTE. THE VIA MEDIA ADOPTED BY THE AO HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE CIT (A) WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEALS. TO HAVE A CONTINUITY AND CLARITY ON THE ISSUES, WE SHALL ALSO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES ON THE SAME PATTERN AS UNDER: 4.1.1. THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED BEFORE THE AO W ITH REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE AY 2003-04 AND THE DETA ILS OF AMOUNTS REALIZED, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, ARE AS UNDER: PARTICULARS GROSS AMOUNT NET AMOUNT (RS.) (RS.) BANANA AT RS.78500/ACRE X 31.82 2497870 LESS: CULTIVATION EXPENSES AT RS.15800/ACRE 502750 : LEASE AMOUNT AT RS.5000/ACRES 122 800 625550 1872320 SUGARCANE: 7.87 ACRES 1 CROP PER YEAR 401370 LESS: EXP. AT 12460/ACRE 98040 303330 RS.2175650 PAGE 5 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 5 4.1.2. HOWEVER, THE AO TOOK A DIVERGENT VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS APART FROM OWNERSHIP O F LANDS, HE ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.24000 /ACRE FOR 15.38 ACRES (SIC) 15.13 ACRES WHICH WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D, ACCORDINGLY, ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.3,69,120/- FOR THE AY 2003-04. 4.1.3. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE WORKING, THE AO H AD WORKED OUT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YE AR-WISE AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR ESTIMATED AGRL. INCOME 1999-00 RS.24,0 00/ACRE 2000-01 24,000/ACRE 2006-07 30,000/ACRE 2007-08 NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ACCEPTED AND THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN ADDED. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUES FOR THE AYS UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE THE CIT (A) FOR RELIEF. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES ELABORATE AND EXHAUSTIVE CONTENTIONS AS RECORDED IN HIS CONSOLIDATED IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER DISPUTE AND ALSO PERUSING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, THE CIT (A) HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER : 5..I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CULTIVATIN G 39.59 ACRES WHICH COMPRISES OF BOTH OWN LAND AS WELL AS L EASED LAND. CONFIRMATION FOR HAVING CULTIVATED ON THE LE ASE LAND HAS BEEN FURNISHED. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT HE REALIZED A NET INCOME OF RS.58,840 PER ACRE FROM BA NANA AND RS.38,543/- PER ACRE FROM SUGARCANE. THE LEARNED A O HAS ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.24,000/- PE R ACRE ON THE LANDS OWNED BY THE APPELLANT. AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AND THE JUSTIFICATION OF PRO BABLE YIELD AND GROSS REALIZATION, I HOLD THAT THE SAME IS REAS ONABLE AND CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED SALE BILLS TO THE COMP LETE PAGE 6 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 6 SATISFACTION OF THE AO. THE CIRCUMSTANCES CALL FOR A REASONABLE ESTIMATE TO BE MADE. I HAVE HELD IN THE CASE OF SMT. K SREELATHA, THE APPELLANTS WIFE IN ITA NO.143/ACIT/11(1)/CIT(A)I/06-07 DATED 05.11.2009 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN NELLORE DISTRICT CAN BE ESTIMATED AT RS.42,000 PER ACRE. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE COMMON, I HOLD THAT EVEN IN THE ABOVE CASE, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE APPE LLANT CAN BE ESTIMATED AT RS.42,000 PER ACRE FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003-04. 5.1. ON THE BASIS, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,13,536/- M ADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 IS DELETED. 5.2. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME IS ESTIMATED AT RS.36550/- PER ACRE ON 39.69 ACRES AT RS.14,50,670/-. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS.3,06, 2712/- IS CONFIRMED IN THE PLACE OF RS.13,93,821/- MADE BY THE AO. 5.3. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE AGRICULTU RAL INCOME IS DETERMINED AT RS.42,000 PER ACRE ON 39.69 ACRE AT RS.16,66,980/-. HENCE, AN ADDITION OF RS.5,08,660/ - IS CONFIRMED IN THE PLACE OF RS.18,06,530/- MADE BY THE AO. 5.4. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE AGRICULTU RAL INCOME IS DETERMINED AT RS.42,000 PER ACRE ON 39.69 ACRES AND COMES TO RS.16,66,980/-. SINCE THE APPELLANT H AS SHOWN LOWER AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE IS DELETED. 5.5. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.14,65,000/-. H OWEVER, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.22,93,920/- INCL UDING THE CULTIVATION AND LEASE EXPENSES OF RS.8,28,920/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. SINCE, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SH OWN BY THE APPELLANT IS LESS THAN THE ESTIMATE MADE, THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. HENCE, THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.22,93,9 20/- MADE IS DELETED. PAGE 7 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 7 6. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT (A) HAD GROS SLY ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MERELY RELYING ON THE ASSESSEE WIFES CASE AND ALSO WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD UN DERTAKEN THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND AS TO WHETHER HE HAD EA RNED INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES; AND THAT THE CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN ONE GO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY RECEIPTS/BILLS ETC., ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUC ES BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO AFTER WORKING OUT THE ESTIMATION ON A SCIENTIFIC AND PROBABILITY OF EARNIN G AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS REQUIRE TO BE SUSTAINED. 6.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR REITERATED MORE OR LESS WHAT WAS PORTRAYED BEFORE THE CIT (A). IN FURTHERANCE, IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS RETURNE D ON ESTIMATE BASIS TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EXTENT OF YIELD AND THE MARK ET RATES OF THE CROPS GROWN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ON AN AVERAGE 250 TO 300 BANANA PLANTS CAN BE PLANTED IN AN ACRE OF LAND AND THAT EACH OF THESE P LANT YIELDS WHICH CAN WEIGH AROUND 40 50 KGS. IT WAS, FURTHER, SUBMITT ED THAT THE AVERAGE BANANA DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD RANGES FROM RS.10 /KG TO RS.15/KG. WITH REGARD TO GROWING OF SUGARCANE, IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT WHAT HAS BEEN RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS QUITE REASONABLE AND RE ALISTIC. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) WARRANT NO INTERFERENCE FROM THE BENCH. PAGE 8 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 8 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORDS. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE WOULD LIKE TO RECA LL THE ASSERTION OF THE LD. D R WHO HAD CONCEDED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT ( A) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE HAVE NOT BEEN CHALLENGED ON APPEAL, CONSIDERING THE TAX EFFECT. THOUGH THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER HAS NOT BE EN CHALLENGED DUE TO TAX EFFECT, THE CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO ASSESSE E HAD PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF ASSESSEES WIFE. IT WAS CA TEGORICALLY FOUND BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE FACT IN ASSESSEES CASE AND THAT OF HIS WIFE ARE COMMON, THEREBY MEANING THAT THE ASSESSEES AND HIS WIFES LANDS ARE IN THE NEARBY VICINITY AND CULTIVATED WITH THE SAME SET OF C ROPS. WHEN IN ASSESSEES WIFES CASE, IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY FO UND THAT RS.42,000/- PER ACRE IS REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WE SEE NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE SAME IN THE INSTANT CASE, UNLESS S OME EVIDENCE IS FURNISHED FROM THE REVENUES SIDE TO REBUT THE ESTIMATE. IN THIS CASE, THE REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANYTHING ON RECORD TO DISPEL THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 7.1.2. IT IS ALSO, INDEED, A FACT THAT THE AGRIC ULTURAL LANDS SITUATED IN NELLORE AND CUDDAPAH DISTRICTS ARE VERY FERTILE LAN DS, YIELDING ENORMOUS RETURNS OF THE CASH CROPS SUCH AS BANANAS, SUGARCAN E, VEGETABLES ETC., THANKS TO MAJOR RIVERS FLOW ACROSS SUCH DISTRICTS. 7.1.3 TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RELEVANT FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE AS DELIBERATED UPON CITED SUPRA AND ALSO A VE RY FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAD BEEN ESTIMATED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY THE AO AND THE CIT (A) AS WELL, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED V IEW THAT THE STAND OF THE PAGE 9 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 9 CIT (A) APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE WHICH WARRANTS NO INTERVENTION OF THIS BENCH. 7.1.4. IN ESSENCE : (I) FOR THE AY 1999-00 DELETION OF RS.1.13 LAKHS BY THE CIT (A) IS UPHELD; (II) FOR THE AY 2000-01 THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ESTIMATED AT RS.36,550/ACRE BY THE CIT (A) IS SUSTAINED THEREBY TH E ADDITION OF RS.3.06 LAKHS ONLY IS CONFIRMED; (III) LIKEWISE, FOR THE AY 2003-04 THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DETERMINED BY THE CIT (A) AT RS.42000/ACRE IS CONFIRMED; AND THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS.5,08,660/-; (IV) FOR THE AY 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD SHOWN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.16.66 LAKHS/ACRE WHEREAS THE CIT (A) HAD FIXED RS.42000/ACRE WHICH IS MORE THAN WHAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD ESTIMATED AND, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED; & (V) FOR THE AY 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.14.65 LAKHS ONLY WHEREAS THE AO HAD MADE THE A DDITION OF RS.22.93 LAKHS WHICH INCLUDED CULTIVATION AND LEASE EXPENSES OF RS.8.28 LAKHS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MUCH LESS THAN THE ESTIMATE OF THE REVENUE, WE SUSTAIN THE DELETION OF RS.22.93 LAKHS ORDERED BY THE CIT (A). IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04: PAGE 10 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 10 7.2. THE OTHER GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE WAS THAT T HE CIT (A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.39.13 LA KHS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED LOANS FROM FRIENDS, RELATIVES, ETC., 7.2.1 BRIEFLY, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDIT ION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT NO PARTICU LARS WERE FURNISHED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE TOOK A STAND THAT THE LOANS R ECEIVED FROM ALL EXCEPT ONE WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS; THAT THE CONFIRM ATION LETTERS FROM VARIOUS CREDITORS, THEIR NAMES, ADDRESSES AND PANS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME FRAME, ONLY AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SOUGHT THE PERMISSION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO PRODUCE THE SAME AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. WHEN T HE AO WAS CALLED UPON THROUGH A REMAND REPORT TO COMMENT ON THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTIONS, THE AO TOOK A STAND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE CREDITORS FOR EXAMINATION. 7.2.2. THIS HAS BEEN CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT WHEN THE REQUIRED DETAILS SUCH AS ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION WITH PAN, INCOME-TAX RETURN COPIES OF CREDITORS WHEREVER ASSESSED AND DETAILS O F THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS FROM WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE ETC., WERE FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE REMAND REPORT PROCEEDIN GS. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS IN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME, HE PLEADED HIS INABILITY TO DO SO SINCE THE CREDITORS WERE SPREAD OVER IN ANDHRA PRADESH AND CHENNAI, UPON WHI CH, THE AO REQUESTED THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MADE . PAGE 11 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 11 7.2.3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION S AS WELL AS THE REASONING OF THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT, THE CIT ( A) HAD RECORDED HIS FINDINGS THUS: 7.I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED CONF IRMATION LETTER FROM THE CREDITORS AND ALSO PAN NUMBER AND I NCOME- TAX RETURN COPIES OF THE CREDITORS WHEREVER ASSESSE D AND THE DETAILS OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS F ROM WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS REPAID SOME OF THE CR EDITORS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. UNDER THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO N. IF THE AO DESIRED, HE OUGHT TO HAVE ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE CREDITORS AS THE BURDEN HAS SHIFTED. SINCE THE SAM E HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT WARRANTED. THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. 7.2.4. TO BE PRECISE, NO CLINCHING DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING O F THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. AS RIGHTLY HIGHLIGHTED BY THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED THE ONUS ON THE LAP OF THE REVENUE BY PRODUCING CON FIRMATION LETTERS, PAN, COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS, DETAILS OF BANK ACCOU NTS OF THE CREDITORS FROM WHICH THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSERTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER; INSTEAD, HE TOOK REFUGE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE CREDIT ORS. THE REASONING OF THE AO, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IS INCORRECT. IF HE HAD ANY DOUBT/AUTHENTICITY OF THE CASH CREDITS, HE COULD HAV E ISSUED SUMMONS PAGE 12 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 12 DIRECTLY WHEN ALL THE DETAILS WITH REFERENCE TO CRED ITORS WERE PLACED BEFORE HIM. 7.2.5. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS FULL Y AND THE REVENUE HAD FAILED TO GRAB THE OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTI CITY OR OTHERWISE OF GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF SUCH CREDITORS . IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE HAVE NO OPTION EXCEPT TO SUSTAIN THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS POINT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. III. CO NOS: 27 & 28/11 AYS 2000-01 & 2003-04 BY THE A SSESSEE: 8. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE CIT (A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3, 06,271/- AND RS.5,08,660/- RESPECTIVELY IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 8.1. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THA T NO CLINCHING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO THWART THE REASONING OF THE CIT (A) TO SUSTAIN ONLY PART OF AGRICULTURE INCOME O F RS.3.06 LAKHS AND RS.5.06 LAKHS FOR THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN HIS IMPU GNED ORDER UNDER DISPUTE. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERVENTION IS CALLED FOR. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. PAGE 13 OF 13 ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 & C.O.NOS.27 & 28/BANG/2011 13 9. IN THE RESULT : (I) THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR THE AYS 1999-00, 200 0-01, 2003-04, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 ARE DISMISSED; AND (II) THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS FOR THE AYS 2 000-01 AND 2003-04 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2012 SD/- SD/- (N K SAINI) (GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COPY TO:- 1. THE REVENUE 2. THE ASSESSEE 3. THE CIT CONC ERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR 6. GF MSP/- BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.