Shri Jagdish Chand Tajta , Shimla V. ITO, W-1, Shimla

ITA 101/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7547 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRAKANTA SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: R K KAUSHAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CHES, SMC CHANDIGARH .., ! BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 101/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI JAGDISH CHAND TAJTA HIG-6, HP HOUSING BOARD COLONY, JAKHOO, SHIMLA EAST, SHIMLA THE ITO W-1, RAILWAY BOARD BUILDING THE MALL-SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH PAN NO: AAMPT4875C APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. R.K. KAUSHAL, CA #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA, SR. DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 18/07/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/07/2019 '#/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 30/11/2018 OF CIT(A),SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,59,390/- AND AGRICULTU RE INCOME OF RS. 21,16,834/- ON 26/03/2014, WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 14 3(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) AT RET URNED INCOME. LATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 50,000/- AND RS . 5,00,000/- ON 02/11/2012 AND 14/11/2012 IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 11293427059 IN CASH. THE SOURCE OF THOSE CASH DEPOSITS WAS CLAIMED TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF THE JAMABANDI DEPICTING LAND HOLD ING AND THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY HIM WHICH REVEALED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO M/S KHURANA & SONS. THE A.O . OBSERVED THAT A SUM OF RS. 6,00,000/- WAS CREDITED AS SALE OF HORTICULTURE PRO DUCE ON THE ORCHARD ITSELF BUT NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN AS REGARDS TO WHOM CASH SALE OF 2 RS. 6,00,000/- WAS MADE. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,00,000/- BY OBSERVING THAT NO PROOF OF THE SAME WAS PUT FORWARD . 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN INC ORPORATED IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FOR THE COST OF REPETITION THE SAME IS NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THA T THE CREDIT OF RS. 5,00,000/- ON 14/11/2012 WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE COMMISSION AGENT AND IT WAS NOT A CASH DEPOSIT. 6. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE CASH SALE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS 22.47% OF THE TOT AL AGRICULTURAL SALES AND IT WAS ALSO ROUNDED OFF WHICH LEAD TO SERIOUS DOUBT. HE CO MPARED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH SOME OTHER CASE OF MAST RAM TAJTA, HU F WHEREIN CASH SALE WAS ONLY 0.36%. ACCORDING TO HIM THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT D ISCHARGED HIS ONUS TO ESTABLISH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, HOWEVER, SOME CA SH SALES AT ORCHARD COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE PART R ELIEF OF RS. 1,00,000/- AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/-. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE OB SERVATIONS OF THE A.O. WAS WRONG THAT A SUM OF RS. 5,00,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH WHICH ACTUALLY WAS THE ELECTRONIC TRANSFER BY THE COMMISSION AGENT THROUGH WHOM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WERE SOLD. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. H AD NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND THE LD. CIT(A) WITHO UT ASSIGNING ANY COGENT REASON WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/-. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. ADJOURNED THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE FOR 28/12/2015 AND THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE SUBMISSIONS ON 27/12/201 5 WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. WHO HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 18/12/2015 WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSE E. MY ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS PAGE NO. 26 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION W HICH IS THE COPY OF REPLY DATED 27/12/2015 SUBMITTED TO THE ITO, WARD-1, SHIM LA BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDRS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN TH E PRESENT CASE THIS CONTENTION 3 OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DEPOSIT OF RS. 5,00,000/- ON 1 4/11/2012 WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRONIC TRANSFER FROM THE COMMISSION AGENT AND N OT THE CASH DEPOSIT, HAD NOT BEEN REBUTTED. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ACCEPTING THE CASH SALE FROM ORCHARD AT RS. 1,00,000/- ONLY HAD NOT AS SIGNED ANY COGENT REASON PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE DEP OSIT OF RS. 5,00,000/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRONIC TRANSFER BY THE COMMISSION AG ENT AND NOT A CASH DEPOSIT. I THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF T HE FACTS AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/07/2019 ). SD/- .., ( N.K. SAINI) ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 18/07/2019 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE