Abitha Banu, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1103/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7906 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMATHY VENKATRAMAN JCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , .. ' #$, & '( BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1103/MDS/2016 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SMT. ABITHA BANU, 26, ANDERSON STREET, CHENNAI - 600 001. PAN : ADPPA 3591 A V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD - VIII(1), CHENNAI. (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) -. 1 2 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE /0-. 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUMATHY VENKATRAMAN, JCIT ' 1 3& / DATE OF HEARING : 22.12.2016 45+ 1 3& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 13, CHEN NAI, DATED 08.02.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. SHRI D. ANAND, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND 2 I.T.A. NO.1103/MDS/16 THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 40,07,749/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 40,01,246/-, WHICH WAS THE MAIN CAUSE FOR INCREASE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS OWNED BY T HE CHILDREN OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE AS SESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO ONLY 1/6 TH OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, OUT OF 5 CHILDREN, 3 WERE MINORS, THEREFOR E, THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARES HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE. MOREOVER, THE MINOR CHILDREN HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND, THE FACT IS THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS INTRODUCED TOWARDS CAPITAL, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE AD DITION. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SMT. SUMATHY VENKATRAMAN, THE L D. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE AGR ICULTURAL LAND DOES NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TEHSILDAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND TH AT THE TOTAL 3 I.T.A. NO.1103/MDS/16 AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ` 17,66,667/- AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 40,01,246/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF ` 8,84,579/- WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WHICH WA S RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE INCREASE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 40,07,749/- IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T THE INCREASE WAS DUE TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ADMITTEDLY, THE AG RICULTURAL LAND STANDS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES CHILDREN. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CULTIVATING THE LAND WHICH BELONGS TO THE CHILDREN IS NOT IN DISPUTE. OUT OF 5 CHILDREN, 3 CHILDREN WERE MINOR, THEREFORE, THE INCOME HAS TO BE NECESSARILY COMPUTED ONLY IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, WHEN THE LAND WAS CULTIV ATED AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, T HE SAME CAN BE BASIS FOR INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT DI SCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF THE CHILDREN OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT CLAIMED BY THE RESPECTIVE CHILDREN A ND THE SAME WAS DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS TR IBUNAL IS OF THE 4 I.T.A. NO.1103/MDS/16 CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SUCH AN INCOME CAN BE A BAS IS FOR INCREASE IN THE CAPITAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNA L IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE SET ASIDE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF ` 8,84,579/- IS DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ' #$ ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 31 ST JANUARY, 2017. KRI. 1 /3#8 98+3 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. /0-. /RESPONDENT 3. ' :3 () /CIT(A)-13, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-8, CHENNAI-34 5. 8; /3 /DR 6. * < /GF.