Sh. Sushil Kumar, Barnala V. ITO, Barnala

ITA 1042/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 104221514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 234B; 148; 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NOS. 1041 AND 1042/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2010-11 SH. SUSHIL KUMAR, VS. THE ITO, S/O LATE SH. SOHAN LAL, BARNALA DISTT. BARNALA PAN NO. BPZPK7900L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 04.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.12.2015 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP BOTH THE APPEALS CONCERN THE SAME ASSESSEE AND THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. FIRSTLY, I WILL TAKE UP ITA NO. 1041/CHD/2014 RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. ITA NO. 1041/CHD/2014 :- 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING T HE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND FRAMING THE ASSES SMENT THEREAFTER IN A MUCH AS THERE HAS BEEN NO ESCAPEMEN T OF INCOME WARRANTING ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT A ND AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTI FIED. 2 2 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,04,940/- O N ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN BANK WHICH IS ARB ITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE NON- ALLOWANCE OF BENEFIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH I S ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 4 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND B WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, SHRI TEJ M OHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS FOR GROUND NO.1 OF T HE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY, I DISMISS THE SAME AS NOT PRESSED. 4. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,04,940/-. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS DOING KARYANA BUSINESS. NO RET URN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN TIME PRESCR IBED U/S 139 OF THE ACT. A TAX EVASION PETITION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE HUGE INVESTMENTS IN PROPERTY AT B HADAUR . THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESS EE. AS PER BANK STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS. 3 LAKHS IN HIS SAVING BA NK ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF PATIALA DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. SINCE NO RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOT ICE ON 2.2.2011 AFTER RECORDING REASONS. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 1 48 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.2.2011 DECLARI NG AN INCOME OF RS. 95,060/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS. 1,21,800/-. AFTER AFF ORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,04,940/- AND ALLOWED BENEFIT OF RETURNED INCOME O F RS. 95,060/-. 3 5. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,04,940/- AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. I HAVE HEARD SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE AT LENGTH AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FROM KAR YANA SHOP AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,21,800/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE SALE AND PURCHASE VOUCHERS. FURTHER MORE, NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SUBMITTED. O N THE CONTRARY, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETT ER DATED 24.10.2011. SHRI TEJ MOHAL SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCE PURCHASE BILLS ON 24.10.2011 BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER. AS REGARDS SALE BILLS, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS N OT MANDATORY TO ISSUE SALE BILLS AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REGISTERED AS VAT DEA LER. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO DI SCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED B Y EH ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT C ASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER IN HASTE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE IN A RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL INCO ME CLAIMED AT RS. 1,21,800/- TO EXAMINE AND DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION OF RS. 83,140/- (RS. 2,04,940 RS. 1,21,8 00) IS CONFIRMED SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS AMOU NT. 4 7. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO CHARGING O F INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. IT IS STATED THAT THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. I HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 8. NO OTHER POINT WAS RAISED OR ARGUED BEFORE ME 9. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED PARTLY. ITA NO. 1042/CHD/2014: 10. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING T HE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND FRAMING THE ASSES SMENT THEREAFTER IN A MUCH AS THERE HAS BEEN NO ESCAPEMEN T OF INCOME WARRANTING ISSUANCE OF NOTICE US/ 148 OF THE ACT AN D AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTI FIED. 11. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS FOR GROUND NO.1 OF T HE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY I DISMISS THE SAME AS NOT PRESSED. 12. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER;- 1 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,45,000/- O N ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN BANK WHICH IS ARB ITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 13. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,45,000/-. THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A GIFT OF RS. 1,45,000/- FROM HIS WIFE SMT . ASHA RANI DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS INVESTMENT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT CASH 5 GIFT OF RS. 1,45,000/- COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED AS GEN UINE BECAUSE NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WA S SUBMITTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SMT. ASHA RANI HAD NOT FILED HER INCOME TAX RETURN IN THE PAST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO POIN TED OUT THAT THE SAID DONOR HAS SHOWN A GIFT OF RS. 6 LAKHS TO HIS SON SHRI AMIT KU MAR IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2008- 09 AND HAS ALSO SHOWN THE INVESTMENT IN PLOT AND BA NK BALANCE OF RS. 56,000/- AS ON 31.3.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUBTED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AND ALSO THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. SMT. AS HA RANI IN HER STATEMENT STATED THAT SHE HAS BEEN DOING THE STITCHING WORK O F LADIES SUITS SINCE 1984. SHE HAD ALSO STATED THAT CASH GIFT OF RS. 6 LAKHS WAS M ADE TO HER SON SHRI AMIT KUMAR IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 AND RS. 1,45,000/- TO HER HUSBAND (ASSESSEE) ) IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10. THESE CASH GIFTS WERE STATE D TO BE OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH HER. SMT. ASHA RANI FURTHER STATED THAT SHE WA S NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF INCOME EARNED BY HER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,45,000/-. 14. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION FO R THE REASONS STATED IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE MADE A C ASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,45,000/- IN HIS SAVING BANK COUNT NO. 6508819368 9 WITH STATE BANK OF PATIALA, BHADAUR. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT DONOR HAS GIVEN AN AFFIDAVIT CONFI RMING THE MAKING OF THE GIFT. IN HER STATEMENT, SMT. ASHI RANI WIFE OF THE ASSESS EE RECORDED ON 4.11.2011 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY SATED THAT SHE HAD MADE THE FIT OF RS. 1,45,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF FUNDS AVAILABLE W ITH HER. THE DONOR ALSO STATED THAT SHE WAS DOING TAILORING WORK SINCE 1982. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DONOR WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTA IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTT AS HER INCOME IS BELOW THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 44A A(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 6 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). AS REGARDS FOR NOT FILIN G OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS BY SMT. ASHA RANI, IT WAS STATED THAT HER INCOME WAS B ELOW TAXABLE LIMIT IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. 15. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE A ND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH , LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAV E NOT APPRECIATED AND CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR TO MAKE THE GIFT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED MY ATTE NTION TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHICH READ S AS UNDER:- 3.2 AS STATED EARLIER, ASSESSEE MADE A CASH DEPOS IT OF RS.1460000 MADE BY ASSESSEE IN HIS SB A/C NO. 65011893689 W ITH STATE BANK OF PATIALA, BHADAUR. THE ASSESSEE DULY EXPLAINED TH E SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE HIS LETTE R DT. 22.06.2011 AND 27.10.2011 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. LD. A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE W.R.T. SOURCE OF DEPOSIT EXCEPT FOR GIFT OF RS. 145000.00 RECEIVED F ROM SMT. ASHA RANI 3.3 A PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT TH E FOLLOWING FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE:- (A) THE IDENTITY OF BOTH THE DONORS IS NOT IN DOUB T AS BOTH HAPPENS TO BE PARENTS OF ASSESSEE; (B) DONOR HAS GIVEN AN AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMING T HE MAKING OF GIFT; (C) AFFIRMATION OF THE DONOR IN IN EXAMINATION ON OATH RECORDED BY A.O. (D) DONOR WAS DOING BUSINESS SINCE 1984 3.3. THE STATEMENTS OF SMT. ASHA RANI WAS RECORDED ON 04.11.2011 BY ASSESSING OFFICER. IN HER STATEMENT SHE HAS DULY CO NFIRMED THE GIFT OF RS. 145000.00 TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF FUNDS AVAILABLE WI TH HER. FURTHER, FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS /DETAILS WERE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD: A) AFFIDAVIT DT. 22.10.2011 OF SMT. ASHA RANI 7 B) BALANCE SHEET TPROFIT & LOSS A/C CAPITAL A/C FO R THE F.Y. 2009-10 OF SMT. ASHA RANI PREPARED AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3.4 IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT SMT. ASHA RANI HAS STATED IN HER STATEMENT THAT SHE IS IN BUSINESS OF STITCHING OF L ADIES SUITS SINCE 1984.LT IS FURTHER STATED THAT SHE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING ROUGH DAY BOOK TO RECORD DAY TO DAY TRANSACTIONS. SHE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN R EGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS HER TURNOVER/INCOME IS BELOW THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED U /S 44AA(2) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. AFTER THE RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY HER AS SESSEE HUSBAND AND HER SONS, SHE GOT HER DAY BOOK DATA COMPUTERIZED ON ACCOUNTIN G SOFTWARE AND GOT PREPARED CASH BOOK(CASH FLOW STATEMENT) AND BALANCE SHEET(STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS) IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE HER INCOME AND SO URCE OF GIFT MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT CAN NOT BE TERMED AS AFTER TH OUGHT BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION. CUMULATIVE CASH BALANCE AS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT SAVED BY ASSESSEE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THE REASON FOR NOT FILING HER ITRS IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE FACT THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN BELOW TAXABLE LIMITS IN THE PRECE DING YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HAVING INCOME FROM BUSINESS SINCE 1984.THE CASH IN HAND IS SUPPORTED BY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. IT IS NO T THE CASE OF ID. A.O. THAT SMT. ASHA RANI WAS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS. WITH REGARD TO THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONOR, THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM BY FURNISHING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DONOR AS ALSO HER CONFIRMATION (AFFIDAVIT) W.R.T GI FT OF RS.145000.00. THE ID. A.O. HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE DOCUMENTS FILED (AS PER S.NO.- ABOVE) IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IF ID. A.O . WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY ASSESSEE, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE HIM TO PROVE ON THE BASIS OF A COGENT EVIDENCE THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT GENUINE. THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE MERELY CONJECTURAL AND ARE BASED ON SURMISES AND AS SUMPTIONS. SUCH CONJECTURES AND ASSUMPTIONS CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE O F PROOF, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY BURDEN WHICH HAD BEEN CA ST UPON HIM. IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT THE ADDITIONS COULD NOT BE MADE MERELY ON GENERALISED OBSERVATIONS OR ON SUSPICION. 8 SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - I) A.K. SACHDEVA V CIT (ITA 251/2009) OF P&H HIGH COUR T II) SURESH KAKAR V CIT 324 ITR 231 (DELHI HIGH COURT ) III) AMITA DEVI V CIT GAUHATI (ITAT THIRD MEMBER) 53 DTR 214/521 IV) CIT V RAM NARIAN GOEL 224 ITR 180(P&H) V) CIT VS. KAMDHENU STEEL AND ALLOYS LTD V CIT 206 TAX MAN 254 16. IT IS OBSERVED THAT I HAVE DECIDED A SIMILAR IS SUE IN ITA NO.1045/CHD/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-1 0 IN THE CASE OF SHRI AMIT KUMAR V ITO VIDE MY ORDER OF EVEN DATE. SHRI AMIT KUMAR IS SON OF SMT. ASHA RANI. SHRI AMIT KUMR CLAIMED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A GIFT OF RS. 6 LAKHS FROM HIS MOTHER SMT. ASHA RANI. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW H AVE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF SHRI AMIT KUMAR STATING THAT HE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR, SMT. AS HA RANA TO MAKE GIFT. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF SH. AMIT KUMR, I HAVE SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND REMANDED THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A F RESH ADJUDICATION. THE DONOR IN THIS CASE AND IN THE CASE OF SHRI AMIT KUMAR IS SMT. ASHA RANI, THEREFORE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RE MAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE DIRECTIONS / OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE CASE OF S HRI AMIT KUMAR WILL ALSO APPLY TO HIS APPEAL WITH EQUAL FORCE. FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 17. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN TREATIN G AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,35,200/- TO BE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED . 9 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.2 .2011 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,00,750/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 1, 35,200/- STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WI TH REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE AGRICULT URAL INCOME SHOWN AT RS. 1,35,200/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 17. IT IS OBSERVED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN ITA NO. 1041/CHD/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT IN A H URRY. IN FACT, NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTAN TIATE HIS CLAIM. WHILE DECIDING A SIMILAR ISSUE IN ITA NO. 1011/CHD.2014, I HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIV EN IN ITA NO. 1041/CHD/2014, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND R EMAND THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 18. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. IT IS STATED THAT THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. I HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED PARTLY AND PARTLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.12.2015 SD/- (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 31 ST DECEMBER, 2015 RKK 10 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR