ITO, Chandigarh V. Sh. Lokinder Singh Chauhan, Chandigarh

ITA 1065/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 106521514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1065/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO, WARD 1(3), V SH.LOKINDER SINGH CHAUHAN, CHANDIGARH. H.NO. 1031, SECTOR 8-C, CHANDIGARH. PAN: AEWPC-3939E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANJEET SINGH RESPONDENT : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 23.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.09.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.05.2008 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DETERMINING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 20,65,346/- AS AGAINST RS. 5,44,500/- DETERMINED BY THE AO. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD. 3. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, RAISED BY THE REVENUE, IT IS CONTENDED THAT CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DETERMINI NG THE 2 AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS.26,65,346/- AS AGAINST RS.5,44,500/- DETERMINED BY THE AO. 4. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. 'DR' DID NOT SERIOUSLY CONTESTED THE ISSUE, BUT PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. LD. 'AR' PLACED RELIAN CE ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). AS INDICATED AT THE VE RY OUTSET, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONS THAT ASSESSEE DECLARE D INCOME OF RS.95,600/- FROM OTHER SOURCES AND RS.13,75,00 0/- FROM AGRICULTURE, WHEREAS A PERUSAL OF INCOME TAX RETU RN, BY THE AO REVEAL THAT APPELLANT HAD SHOWN ONLY AGRICULTUR E INCOME AT RS.20,65,346/-. THESE OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN MA DE BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE AO, C ONCLUDED, ON APPRECIATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE THAT AGRICULTURE INCOME COULD BE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 ,44,500/- AND THE BALANCE INCOME OF RS.15,20,846/- WAS TREATE D BY THE AO AS NON-AGRICULTURE AND FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES . THE AO HAS GIVEN THE REASONS, AS MENTIONED IN PARA 4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 4. (I) THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE DETAIL OF AG RICULTURE EXPENSES INCURRED TO ASCERTAIN THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (II) THE YIELD OF THE APPLE STATED BY THE AS SESSEE DURING ENQUIRIES WAS EXCESSIVE AT 22.42 METRIC TONS PER HECTARE. FORM TH E LOCAL ENQUIRIES MADE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT NO AGRICULTURE LAN D, HOW MUCH FERTILE, COULD GIVE YIELD MORE THAN 5.5 METRIC TONS PER HECTARE OF APPLE AND ALSO AS PER DETAILS DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE WWW.HIMVANI.COM/NE W/2009/08/15/NEEDED- A-SPORT-STRUCTURE-FOR-APPLE, WHICH WAS REPRODUCED A S UNDER- 'THIS AVERAGE YIELD OF APPLE WAS ABOUT 5.5 METRIC T ONS PER HECTARE. PRODUCTION IS CONCENTRATED IN A FEW REGIONS OF NORTHERN INDIA WHERE THE CLIMATE SUITS PRODUCTION OF TEMPERATE ZONE CROPS SUCH AS APPLES. 5. LD. CIT(A), ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTUAL MATRI X OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE HER, GAVE FOLLOWI NG FINDINGS : 3 7. AFTER HAVING CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CO NTENTIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : (I) WHILE CALCULATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON A WEBSITE NAMELY HIMVANI.COM, AN ONLINE PUBLICATION F OR COMPUTING THE YIELD OF APPLE WHEREAS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE APPROPRIATE I F HE HAD COMPARED THE YIELD OF APPLE WITH THE OTHER GRO WERS OF THE SAME/ADJACENT AREAS. (II) THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONE D THAT LOCAL ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN MADE REGARDING YIELD OF APPLES, NOTHING HAS BE EN BROUGHT ON ' RECORD WHICH COULD LEND SOME WEIGHT TO THE CONCLUSI ON DRAWN, (III) THE APPELLANT PRODUCED COPIES OF SALE BILL S/J-FORMS WHICH HAVE BEEN - FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE MUCH LESS TO ESTABLISH ANYTHING NON-GENUINE ABOUT THESE SALE TRANSACTIONS. (IV) THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOM E AT RS. 1038815/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED U/S 143(3) BY THE DEPARTMENT. (V) COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT REFLECTING DEPOSIT OF SALE PROCEEDS HAVE BEEN SCRUTINIZED AND FOUND IN ORDER. (VI) THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED A COPY OF CERTIFICAT E ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF HORTICULTURE, NAV BAHAR, SHIMLA-2 WHICH STATES THAT 'STANDARD APPLE ORCHARD CONTAINS 178 NOS. OF APPLE PLANTS PER HECTA RE. IF PLANTED AT A DISTANCE OF 7.5 X 7.5 METER, AND IF PLANTED AT THE DISTANCE OF 6X6 INT., IT MAY CONTAIN UPTO 280 NOS. OF STANDARD APPLE PLANTS IN ONE HECTARE OF AREA. FULL GROWN AND -WELL MAINTAINED APPLE PLANT C AN PRODUCE UP TO 250 KG OF FRUIT PER PLANT UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS. ' TH IS IMPLIES THAT IF THE MINIMUM NO. I.E. 178 APPLE PLANTS PER HECTARE (X) 2 50 KG DIVIDED BY 1000 IS TAKEN, THE YIELD WOULD COME TO 44.5 METRIC TONS WHICH IS QUITE HIGH COMPARED TO WHAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN AT 22 .42 METRIC TONS. 8 AS PER THE DISCUSSION ABOVE, I BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED HIS FINDING ON THE NEWS LETTER OF HIMVANI.COM WHICH CLEARLY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS AN EXPERT OPINION. EVEN IF IT WAS CONSI DERED, IT NEEDED CORROBORATION. THEREFORE, I HOLD THE BIFURCATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT INTO TWO PARTS I.E. I.1520846/- AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND I.544500/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS NO SOUND BASIS. 4 9. THE ADDITION OF RS.1520846/- MADE ON THIS ACCOUN T IS THEREFORE, DELETED AND INCOME OF RS.20,65,346/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ACCEPTED AS CORRECT. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APP ELLANT, BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). FIND INGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE WELL-REASONED AND BASED ON EVIDENCES FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, BEFORE HER. REVENUE HAS FAILED TO BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS, TO JUSTIFY ACTION OF THE AO. IN VIEW OF THIS, FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE UPHELD. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH SEPT.,2012. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12 TH SEPT.,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH