Sh. Abhay Singh Chautala, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1151/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8205 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Rule of consistency; TDS
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 133(6)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1151/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SH. ABHAY SINGH CHAUTALA, VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CI RCLE-II, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ANQPS6334J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. T.N. SINGLA RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 21.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.03.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) (CENTRAL), GURGAON DATED 17.7.2014 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEALS) IS BAD A GAINST THE FACTS & LAW. 2. THAT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS NOT G IVEN TO APPELLANT BY LEARNED C.I.T. (A). 3. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) HAS WRONGLY TREATED AGRI CULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.6,30,496/- (WRONGLY TYPED AS RS. 6,34,096/-) AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM 'OTHER SOURCES'. 2 4. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) HAS WRONGLY ADDED BANK INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 20,075/-TO THE INCOME OF THE APPEL LANT. 5. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,194/- ON INT EREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR ON THE GRO UND THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE SAME BY VIRT UE OF S. 199 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 6. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) HAS ERRED BY NOT ALLOWI NG CREDIT OF RS. 17,194/- AS TDS ON INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM LA ND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR TO ANY OF THE CO-OWNER OF LAND. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING. 2.1 I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. GROUND NOS. 1, 2 & 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND N EED NO ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NOS. 4 ,5 & 6 ARE NOT PRESSED, THE SAME A RE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THAT LEAVES GROUND NO.3 WHEREIN THE CIT(A ) UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,30,496/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES INSTEAD OF TREATING THE AMOUNT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE BRI EF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.7.2007 DE CLARING TOTAL INCOME AT 12,01,210/- APART FROM THE ABOVE, ASSESSEE HAS A LSO DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 71 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER GOING THOUGH THE EXTENT 3 OF LAND CULTIVATED HAS DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,30,496/- BEING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DERIVED OUT OF LEASE HOLD LANDS AS THE GIRDAWARI AND OTHER REVENUE RECORDS DO NOT SHOW THE NAME OF THE A SSESSEE AS OWNER OR CULTIVATOR. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE NEITHER THE OWNER NOR THE CULTIVATOR IN RESPECT OF LAND THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN ON LEASE. 4.1 BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E NAME OF THE TENANT I.E. ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTERED INTO THE REVENUE RECORD BE CAUSE OF THE APPREHENSION OF TENANCY LAWS BASED ON THE PUNJAB TE NANCY ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMONED THE OWNER S OF THE LAND U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT FOR VERIFICATION OF THE LEASE DEE D AND TERMS OF THE LAND. THE LAND OWNER DURING THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OAT H BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTED THE GENUINE LEASE EXECUTED BY THEM DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THEY ALSO STATED IN THE STATEMENT THAT THEY D ID NOT AGREE FOR ENTRY OF THE APPELLANT AS A CULTIVATOR IN THE GIRDAWARI WITH REVENUE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE AS PER THE PUNJAB TENANCY ACT, IF GIRDAWARI IS REGISTERED, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO EVICT THE TENANT. THE COPIES OF THE LEASE DEEDS ARE SUBMITTED AND OWNERS OF THE LAND ADMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS I NDEED GIVEN ON LEASE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE LEASE DEED UNDER CONSIDERATION MADE BY THE LAND OWNERS WHO HAVE LEAS ED OUT THEIR LANDS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECORD THAT TH E AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE LEASE HOLD LAND WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2002-03 AND ALSO IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. IN THE CASE OF SH. AJAY KUMAR CHAUTALA, THE ITAT CHANDIGAR H HAS ACCEPTED THE 4 AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM T HE LEASE HOLD LAND (COPY FILED AT PB-62). 4.2 LD. DR, HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. TH E ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK HAS FILED COPIES OF VARIOUS ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 143(3) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT ASSE SSMENT YEARS IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SIMILAR LEASE HOLD AGRICULTURAL L AND. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPIES OF VARIOUS QUESTIONNAIRE S ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING O F THE ASSESSMENT TO SHOW THAT ASSESSING OFFICER CONSCIOUSLY CONSIDERED THE I SSUE OF EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM LEASE HOLD AGRICULTURAL LA ND. THE DEPARTMENT HAS THEREFORE, ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF EA RNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM LEASE HOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON' BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-2, CHANDIGARH VS. JAR NAIL SINGH, KARTA IN ITA N0. 166 OF 2008 DATED 12.05.2008 IN WHICH THE I SSUE WAS ALSO REGARDING EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OUT OF OWN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND LEASED AGRICULTURAL LAND AND DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HA S BEEN DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT HE HAS PERFORM ED BASIC OPERATION OF EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR U NDER APPEAL, THEREFORE, ON THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW IN RESPECT OF IDENTICAL MATT ER IN ISSUE. THOUGH THE 5 RULE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO INCOME TAX P ROCEEDINGS BUT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT RULE OF CONSISTENCY SHALL BE FOLLO WED BY INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. HENCE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT A SSESSEE HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY TREATED AND ALLOWED THE INCOME AS AGRI CULTURAL INCOME FROM LEASE HOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SAME WAS BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF THE OWNERS OF THE LAND CONFIRMING THE FACT OF LEASING T HE LAND TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,30,496/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING IT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS HEREB Y DELETED. GROUND NO. 3 IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 24- 03-2017 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR