Mr. Rupinder Singh, Chandiarh V. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1063/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3328 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2019
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH CIT DR
• Keywords: Salary income; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(1); 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CH B, CHANDIGARH .., ! '# #$ %, & '( BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM ITA NO. 1063/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 MR. RUPINDER SINGH H.NO. 535, SECTOR 8-B CHANDIGARH DCIT C-1(1) CHANDIGARH PAN NO: AGFPS1918J APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, CIT DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 19/08/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/08/2019 ')/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 28/06/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), HAS, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORDS, ERRED IN SUSTAINING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 42,21,384/- AS NON -AGRICULTURAL . THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT BE ACCEPTED. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ON PR ESUMPTIONS, SURMISES INFERENCES AND CONJECTURE HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD NO POPLAR TREES TO SELL AND HENCE HAD NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO REPORT. THE CLA IM OF THE APPELLANT BE ACCEPTED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BEFORE THE SAME IN TAKEN UP FOR FINAL DISPOSAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE ALSO MOVED AN APPLICATION DT. 17/08 /2019 FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES STATING THEREIN AS UNDER: RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER: THE ABOVEMENTIONED APPEAL IS FIXED FOR HEARING ON T HE 19 TH OF AUGUST, 2019. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.42,21,384/- TREATING THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL INC OME TO BE OTHER INCOME APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68. THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED O N RECORD JAMABANDI FOR THE YEAR 2013 ON RECORD SHOWING THE POPLAR TREES AS WELL AS OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ON THE LAND BESIDES J FORMS IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PRODUCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SINCE PROCURED JAMABANDI FOR THE EARLIER AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO PROV E THE EXISTENCE OF POPLAR TREES AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS HAVING BEEN CULTIVATED ON THE LAND. THE DOCUMENTS BEING SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED ARE FROM THE CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORD OF A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. AS SUCH IT IS, THEREFORE, RESPEC TFULLY PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY PLEASE BE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED UPO N. 2 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 14/03/2015 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 40,67,080/- W HICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS ACT). LATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TO HAVE EARNED INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, BUSINESS & PROFESSION AND OTHER SOURCES APART FROM THIS HE HAD ALSO SHOWN AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 42,21,000/-. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW TH E NECESSARY EVIDENCES FOR EARNING AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY DT . 09/06/2016 WHICH REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS. 2,20,771/- FROM SALE OF A GRICULTURE PRODUCE AND RS. 38,00,000/- AS PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF POPULAR TREE. THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED FROM THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT PRODUCED J FORM PERTAINING TO THE SALE OF POPULAR TREE OR ANY DOCUM ENT TO PROVE THAT HE HAD SOLD AGRICULTURE PRODUCE AGAINST WHICH HE HAD EARNED AGR ICULTURE INCOME. HE THEREFORE ADDED THE INCOME OF RS 42,21,384/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, TREATING THE SAME AS AN INCOME FOR WHICH NO EX PLANATION HAD BEEN GIVEN. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 7. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS RELATING TO RECEIPT FROM AGRICULTURE PRODUCE WERE FURNISHED TO THE A.O. WHIC H INCLUDED THE SALE OF POPULAR TREES, SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE AGAINST J FORM A ND SALE OF CASH CROP I.E; VEGETABLES AMOUNTING TO RS. 38,00,000/-, RS. 2,20,771/- AND RS . 2,00,613/- RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED GIRDAWARI ( CROP CULTIVATION STATEMENT) DT. 10/02/2014 DEPICTING THE NATURE OF CROP VIZ POPULAR TREE, MARI GOLD & ZIRE (FODDER) ON TOTAL AREA OF 14 ACRES CULTIVATED LAND. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NOW THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COPY OF JAMABANDI FOR THE EARLIER YEARS A S WELL AS THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF POPULAR TREE AND OTHER AGRIC ULTURE PRODUCTS HAVING BEEN CULTIVATED ON THE LAND. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED EARLIER BECAUSE THE A.O. ASKED THE DOCUMENTS ONLY F OR THE RELEVANT YEAR WHICH WAS UNDER SCRUTINY NOT FOR THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO OTHER YEARS TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF POPULAR TREES WHICH WERE SOLD IN THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. IT WAS STATED THAT THE DOCUMENTS NOW FURNISHED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER THEREFORE THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1963. 9. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT(A) STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE A.O. 3 TREATED ALL THE AGRICULTURE INCOME (EVEN WHICH WAS MENTIONED IN J FORM) AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). AT THIS STAGE THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COPIES OF THE GIRDAWARI AND JAMABANDI FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF POPULAR TREES AND OTHER AGRICULTURE PRODUCT WHICH WERE CULTIVATED ON THE LAND OF THE AS SESSEE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE DOCUMENTS NOW F URNISHED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE FURNISHED EARLIER BEFORE THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW FOR THE REASONS THAT THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEVANT YEAR ONLY WERE ASKED BY THE A.O. AND THOSE WERE FURNISHED. IN OUR OPINION THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOW FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRST TIME BEFORE THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE RELEVANT TO RESOLVE THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY AND THESE DOCUMENTS GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, T HEREFORE THE SAME ARE ADMITTED. SINCE THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE A.O . OR THE LD. CIT(A), WE, THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ALSO TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOW FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD TO BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/08/2019 ) SD/- SD/- #$ % .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) & '(/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 28/08/2019 (+! ,-.- 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 (+ $ BY ORDER, ; # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR