Smt Anupaben V Patel, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 1144/RJT/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 114424914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J B JHAVERI D R
• Assessee Lawyers: RK DOSHI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL: RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA JM AND SHRI B. R. JAIN AM ITA NO. 1144/RJT/2010 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. SMT. ANUPABEN V. PATEL, PRADEEP, 2, SAURASHTRA KALA KENDRA, RAJKOT. PAN : AHRPP3971H ( / APPELLANT V/S THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), RAJKOT / RESPONDENT ! ' #$ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI R.K. DOSHI, C.A. % ! ' #$ / REVENUE BY SHRI J.B. JHAVERI, D.R. # & ' ! ( / DATE OF HEARING 06/01/2014 ) ! ( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09/01/2014 / ORDER PER B. R. JAIN, A. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATE D 28/07/2010 OF SHRI R.N. PRASAD, LEARNED CIT(A)-I, RAJKOT RAISES T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 17,11 ,936/- AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED/UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 2. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS IN PASSING THE ORDERS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING TH E FACTS AND THAT THEY FURTHER GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSI ONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BE FORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 13,78,660/-. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSTITUTED ENQUIRY AND REQUIRED T HE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE BROUGH T ON RECORD THE FACT ITA 1144/RJT/2010 2 THAT HE OWNS 32 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. OUT OF THIS 14 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS OWNED IN THE EARLIER YEARS ON WHICH AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR HAS BEEN D ECLARED AT RS. 2,96,668/-. THE BALANCE 18 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND HAS BEEN PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE S ET OUT ON RECORD THAT THIS LAND HAS BEEN CULTIVATED AND IRRIGATION FACILI TY BY WAY OF A WELL, IS AVAILABLE. HE ALSO PLACED REVENUE RECORD IN FORM 7/ 12 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED SALES IN VOICES IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE HAS BEEN SOLD AN D AFTER DEFRAYING EXPENSES FOR CULTIVATION FROM GROSS AGRICULTURAL IN COME OF RS. 17,11,968/-, NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 13,78,660/- HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, WAS N OT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE INFORMATION CALL ED FROM RAJKOT TALUKA MAMLATDAR REVEAL THAT THE LAND IS PADTAR I.E. BAR REN. HE, THEREFORE, RESTED HIS CONCLUSION ON THE PADTAR ISSUED BY MAMLATDAR A ND TREATED THE GROSS INCOME OF RS. 17,11,986/- AS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), SAME FACTS WERE REITERATED. I T WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MAMLATDAR CANNOT BE TAKEN AS CONCLUSIVE TO DISBELIEVE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED AG RICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND EARNED INCOME ON THE LAND, WHICH IS IRRIGATED AND S ALE VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM WERE LAID BEFORE HIM. T HE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT A CROP LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE CULTIVATION OF THIS LAND AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS LAID BEFORE THE A.O. AS WE LL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) THAT RECORD OF MAMLATDAR WAS DEFECTIVE DUE TO CERTAIN SOFTWARE ERR ORS. IT WAS, THUS, CLAIMED THAT RESTING CONCLUSION SOLELY ON CERTIFICA TE ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF DEFECTIVE RECORD, CANNOT DISPROVE THE GENUINE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ITA 1144/RJT/2010 3 LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSE E AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 4. BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LAID RELEVANT AND RELIABLE MATERIAL ON RECORD B EFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MAMLATDAR COULD NO T BE BELIEVED AS IT WAS PREPARED FROM THE DEFECTIVE RECORD AND PROOF IN THI S RESPECT WAS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LA ND OF ASSESSEE WAS IRRIGATED AND DULY CULTIVATED. AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED ON 14 ACRES OF LAND IN THE EARLIER YEARS HAS DULY BEEN ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEAR ASSESSMENTS. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN ACTIVITY. EVEN T HE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA HAVE GIVEN A REPORT THAT T HE REPORTS OF MAMLATDAR ARE NOT CORRECT. SUCH A REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE AS WELL AS ALSO LAID ON THE RECORD. THERE IS ALSO AUTHENTIC RE PORT FROM THE GOVT. OF INDIA SHOWING THAT THERE HAS BEEN HEAVY RAIN FALL I N THE STATE OF GUJARAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE AGRICULTURAL P RODUCE HAS INCREASED. THE ASSESSEES LAND WAS HAVING WELL AND THUS WATER RESOURCES WAS AVAILABLE. THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR CULTIVATION SU PPORT APPELLANTS CARRYING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. NONE OF THE AUTHO RITIES HAVE DISBELIEVED THE INCURRING OF EXPENSES FOR CULTIVATION OF AGRICU LTURAL LAND. IT HAS, THEREFORE, BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE BEING BONAFIDE, NEEDS TO BE ACCEPTED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTS THE FIN DINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ADMITTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AGR ICULTURAL INCOME FROM 14 ACRES OF LAND IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE SAME STOOD ACCEPTED FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THOSE YEARS. NO CHANGE IN THE ACTIVIT Y IS REPORTED. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASE D 18 ACRES OF LAND, WHICH WAS HAVING IRRIGATION FACILITIES. THE CROP L OAN ON THIS LAND FROM THE ITA 1144/RJT/2010 4 BANK HAS ALSO BEEN RAISED. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES FOR CULTIVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE PRODUCE SO OBTAINED WAS SOLD TO THE REGISTERED DEALERS. IN SUPPORT THEREOF, THE ASSESSE E HAS LAID ON RECORD PUCCA BILLS. THESE BILLS SHOWING SALE OF AGRICULTUR AL PRODUCE HAVE NOT BEEN DISBELIEVED NOR ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUG HT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. THE APPELLANT HAS THUS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN T HAT LAY UPON HIM TO PROVE THAT HE HAD CARRIED OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIO NS AND EARNED INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURE. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, HOWEVE R, RESTED THEIR CONCLUSION SOLELY ON THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY MAML ATDAR IN FORM NO. 7/12, WHICH OTHERWISE WAS PREPARED FROM A DEFECTIVE RECOR D GENERATED FROM THE SOFTWARE HAVING ERROR. THIS FACT IS ALSO EVIDENT FR OM PAGE NO. 8 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. THIS BEING SO IT COULD NOT B E A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO DISBELIEVE THE APPELLANT. UNDER THE PEC ULIAR FACTS, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A GENUINE CLAI M OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. THE ADDITION SO MADE, THEREFORE, IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/01/014. SD/- SD/- ( T. K. SHARMA ) ( B. R. JAI N ) #*% /JUDICIAL MEMBER $( #*% / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *$+ ,*-/ ORDER DATE 09/01/2014 /RAJKOT *RANJAN / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT- SMT. ANUPABEN V. PATEL, RAJKOT. 2. /RESPONDENT- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), RAJ KOT 3. #-2- & 3 / CIT-I, RAJKOT. 4. & 3 - / CIT (A)-I, RAJKOT. ITA 1144/RJT/2010 5 5. 789 , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. 9; <= / GUARD FILE. *$+ #$ / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY, , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT.