The ITO, Ward-9(1), Surat V. Smt. Daxaben Dilipbhai Patel, Surat

ITA 12/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9377 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INC O ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D - BENCH,AHMEDABAD . BEFORE : SHRI T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOU NTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 12/AHD/2007 AND C.O. NO.41/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04) (C.O.FILED BY THE ASSESSEE) INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), SURAT. VERSUS SMT. DAXABEN DILIPBHAI PATEL, 35,SAHYOG SOCIETY, SUMUL DIARY ROAD, SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI M.C.PANDIT, DR FOR THE RESPONDENT NONE ORDER SHRI T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DT.18.10.2006 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) V, SURAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. 2. SHRIT.R.MODY,CA, LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT VIDE HIS APPLICATION DT. 3.8.2009 ON THE GROUND THAT HE I S SUFFERING FROM ACUTE BACK PAIN AND COULD NOT ATTEND ON THE APPOINTED DATE. NO MEDICAL CERTIFICATE TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED AND THE CASE WAS HEARD EXPARTE QU A ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD. 2. GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.2,73,316 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 3. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS A GRICULTURAL RECEIP TS OF RS.6,13,751 BY INCLUDING R S.2,73,316 AS HER AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED RS.2,73,316 PERTAINED TO THE EARLIER YEARS. IT WAS STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME PERTAINING TO FINANCIAL YEARS 2000 - 01 AND 2001 - 02 WERE NOT REMITTED TO HER BY HER FATHER COMPLETELY AND ONLY RS.95,000 WERE REMITTED/HANDED OVER IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2000 - 01 AND RS.68,000 WAS GIVEN TO HER IN FINANCIAL YE AR 2001 - 02. ON RECEIPT OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT TOTALLING TO RS.2,73,316 PERTAINING TO THOSE EARLIER YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT 2 YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO F URNISH THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER, TOTAL PRODUCTION, SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER DEDUCTING RELEVANT AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT NO SPECIFIC DETAILS OF TOTAL QUANTITY PRODUCED HOW MUCH AMOUNT A ND WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND HOW MUCH AMOUNT AND WHEN IT WAS SPENT FOR EXPENSES WERE SUBMITTED. ON THE CONTRARY THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER LETTER DT.15.11.2005 STATED THAT IF THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE THEN THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,73,316 MAY BE CONSIDERED AS GIFT RECEIVED FROM FATHER/BROTHERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT O F RS.2,23,461, MOST OF THEM WAS INCURRED N THE MEDICAL EXPENSES OF THE ASSESS EES HUSBAND. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED RS.1,00,000 TO M/S.MITESH TEXTILES AS INTEREST FREE ADVANCES. ALL THEE REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED ADEQUATE FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED HER UNDISCLOSED FUND UNDER THE BANNER OF EARLIER YEAR AGRICULTURE RECE IPT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR FROM HER FATHER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,763,316 INTRODUCED IN THE NAME OF EARLIER YEARS AGRICULTURE INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS AS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUCH AS THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED DURING THE LAST THREE YEARS ALONGWITH THE BILL S OBTAINED FROM SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD CORRELATING THE AMOUNT OF RS.95,000, RS.68,000 AND RS.2,73,316 RECEIVED FROM THE FATHER FOR AYS 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03 AND 2003 - 04. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FU RNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS FURNISHED BE FORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LAND HOLDINGS IN TH E FORM OF DOCUMENTS SUCH AS FORM NO.7/12 AND 8/A AND AGRICULTURAL PRODU C E SALE BI L LS AS ISSUED BY SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN SUPPORT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.2,73,316. 5. HAVING HEARD BOTH SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM 3 AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER AND THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTED HER AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS TWO FINANCIAL YEARS I.E., 2000 - 01 AND 2001 - 02 REMITTED TO HER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SAID INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED ALL THE DETAILS AND CAME TO CONCLUDE THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,73,316 WERE EXPLAINED WITH THE HELP OF ALL REQUIRED DOCU MENTS WHICH PERTAINS TO EARLIER YEARS. THUS, HE OPINED AND IN OUR VIEW CORRECTLY, THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INCOME, THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAVING DULY ESTABLISHED IT CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION REPRESENTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF EARLIER YEARS BUT RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN OUR VIEW IS PERFECTLY J USTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.2,73,316. WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE. 6. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.3,42,131 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS CLAIMED AS CO - OWNER SHARE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME. 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FACTS RELEVANT ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED GROSS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPT OF RS.4,85,366 ON THE BASIS OF THE COPY OF ACCOUN T OF SHREE KHEDUT SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDLI LTD., BABEN, BARDOLI ONO MERCANTILE BASIS BEING A MEMBER OF THE SAID SOCIETY. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SALE BILLS SHOWING THE SALE MADE IN HER NA ME. SHE ALSO PRODUCED THE COPY OF BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, ISSUED IN HER NAME AND ALSO IN THE NAMES OF SHRI THAKOORBHAI KHANDUBHAI PATEL AND HIS SON SHRI KIRANBHAI T.PATEL TO SHOW THE GENERATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE TOTAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS 1/6 TH SHARE ON THE LAND OF 6.11 HECTORS SITUATED AT VILLAGE GOTIA, TAL. PALSANA, DIST. SURAT. HE ESTIMATED THE YIELD OF THE LAND AT 959.165 TONNES AND ESTIMATED THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE ON T HE YIELD AT 159.86 TONNES VALUED AT RS.1,43,235. THE ASSESSEE HAVING SHOWN 4 AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS OF RS.4,85,366, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.3,42,131 (I.E., RS.4,85,366 1,43,235) TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.68 OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING 1/6 TH SHARES ON THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS. BUT, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.3,42,131 CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.68 BECAUSE ALL THE DETAILS REGARDING THE GENERATION OF ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE HANDS OF HER FATHER AND BROTHER WERE COMPLETELY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN AGRICULTURAL RECEIPT WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.1,43,235. THE ABOVE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE LEARNED DR. THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AMO UNT SOUGHT TO BE ADDED U/S.68 OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAID ADDITION. WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NO.2 OF TH E REVENUE. 8. GROUND NO.3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 9. THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SINCE WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE CROSS OBJECTION BECOMES INFRUC TUOUS. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. 21.08.09 SD/ - SD/ - ( N.S.SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (T.K.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 21.8.09 (H.K.PADHEE) SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 5 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. THE DR, AHMED ABAD 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, DEPUTY.REGISTRAR.