A.S.Leasing Limited, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1170/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6470 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMISHA S GUPT
• Assessee Lawyers: A KIRAN MANOHAR
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A - SMC, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1170/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 - 05 A.S. LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED, HYDERABAD. PAN: AACCA 2305 H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI A. KIRAN MANOHAR REVENUE BY: SMT. AMISHA S. GUPT, DR DATE OF HEARING: 21/01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 /0 2 /2020 ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD IN APPEAL NO. 0153/CIT(A) - 1,HYD/2016 - 17/2017 - 18, DATED 27/02/2018 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 254 OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2004 - 05. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL HOWEVER, THE CR UX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,03,744 MADE BY THE LD. A.O. UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRI CULTURAL INCOME. 2 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. DR FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.1073 TO 1077/HYD/2018, DATED 15/03/2019 FOR THE AYS 2003 - 04, 2005,06, 2007 - 08 TO 2009 - 10 AND SUBMITTED THAT ON THE SAME ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THE REFORE, THE LD. DR PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE MAY BE UPHELD. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR COULD NOT SUCCESSFULLY CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. A FTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE ITA NO.1073 TO 1077/HYD/2018 (SUPRA), I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ON THE VERY SAME ISSUE THE ITAT HAS DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR THE REVENUE . THE RELE VANT PORTION OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IS EXTRACTED HEREINBELOW FOR REFERENCE: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS AGRICULTURAL LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 29 ACRES 4 GUNTAS AND CLAIMED RS. 3,03,744/ - AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENT / EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME IS DERIVED FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY, THE A.O. RE JECTED THE CLAIM AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. DURING THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ITAT, THE TRIBUNAL SET - ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, A.O. GRANTED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES AND REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH PATTADAR PASS B OOK, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE LAND WAS GIVEN ON LEASE OR ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE CULTIVATOR OR PROOF OF CULTIVATION OF THE LAND AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AS A SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. AFTER REPEATED NON - COMPLIANCE TO THE 3 A.O.S REQUESTS, THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EXCEPT COPIES OF SALE DEEDS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE SUCH AS DETAILS OF THE THIRD PARTY CULTIVATORS WHO CARRIED OUT THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, WHAT ARE THE PAYMENT S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, DETAILS OF CROPS CULTIVATED DURING THE YEAR, DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN RELATION TO CULTIVATION, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ETC., A.O. REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ADDED THE SAME UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES. BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT IMPROVE HIS CASE AND EVEN BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED O UT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY EITHER BY ITSELF OR BY THIRD PARTY. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN CASTED UPON IT TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND DERIVED THE AGRICULTURA L INCOME. IN SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY THROUGH THIRD PARTY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS REJECTED . ANOTHER ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. IT IS CORRECT. HOWEVER, IN THE SEARCH, NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARRIED ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND THUS, THIS ARGUMENT IS ALSO REJECTED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT IN THE A.Y. 2005 - 06, THE A.O. HAS CONSIDERED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME E ARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND MERELY BASED ON THE EARLIER YEAR / ONE YEAR, IT CANNOT BE SAI D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED OUT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AR IS ALSO REJECTED. IN THE CASE OF GOPI RAM LILA (SUPRA), THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF T HE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOPI RAM LILA (SUPRA), WE ARE O F THE OPINION THAT THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A). GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. SINCE, IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR A LSO THE ISSUE BEING THE SAME, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE (CITED SUPRA) , I DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE 4 WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DEVOID OF MERITS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/ - ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 07 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. OKK COPY TO: - 1) A.S. LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED, FLAT NO. 601, KHANCHAND TOWERS, H.NO.6 - 3 - 190/1, ROAD NO.1, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. 2) ITO, WARD - 1(2), IT TOWERS, AC GUARDS, HYDERABAD. 3) THE CIT(A) - 1, HYDERABAD. 4) THE PR. CIT - 1, HYDERABAD 5) THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6) GUARD FILE