THE DY. CIT- 2(1), RAIPUR (CG) V. SHRI ARUN SINGHANIA, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 140/BIL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3525 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH , RAIPUR BEFORE S HRI N.K. BILLAIYA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 140 / RPR /20 1 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - 2(1), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR (C.G .) VS. SH. ARUN SINGHANIA, GOKUL, 1/1652, GEETA NAGAR, CHOUBEY COLONY, RAIPUR, PAN: AKHPS6503R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI P.K. MISHRA ( DR ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ABHISHEK JAIN (A R ) DATE OF HEARING: 07 /03 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 / 05 /201 8 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST ORDER DATED 14.04.2014 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), RAIPUR , FOR T HE A S S ESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 , WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 153 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE A CT). 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AND THE CASE WAS T AKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. ACCORDINGL Y, NOTICE U/S 153 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE . IN 2 ITA NO. 140 / RPR /201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 1 0 RESPONSE THEREOF THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 37,38,200/ - . IN RESPONSE TO THE N OTICE S U/S 143 (2) AND 142 (1) THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) O F THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISHED THE INFORMATION /DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 61,73,604/ - . THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY ASKED TO EXPLAIN AND FURNISHED DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM . THE AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD TIMBER WORTH RS. 83,08,910/ DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AFTER DEDUCTING THE EXPENSES INCURRED EARNED NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 61,73,604/ - . HOWEVER, THE AO REJEC TED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS OF SALES OF TIMBER AS WELL AS THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 83,09,910/ - UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME O F RS. 1,20,47,110/ - . 3. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE THE L D.CIT (A). THE LD.CIT (A) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). T HE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT ( A) ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND : - 1. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 83,08,910/ - MADE BY THE AO TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME . 2. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) RELYING O N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 83,08,910/ - MADE BY THE AO TREATING THE SAME AS 3 ITA NO. 140 / RPR /201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 1 0 AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT FILED ANY DETAILS REGARDING SAL E OF TIMBERS OR EXPENSES INCURRED THE AO HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT IN QUESTION AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SIN CE, THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THE LD. COUNSEL INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR, ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS IN ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRI NCIPLES OF LAW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION HO LDING AS UNDER: 6.10 LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS ALSO DECISIONS CITED ABOVE, I AM CONVINCED THAT THE A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON SUSPICION AND SURMISES UNSUBSTANTIATED ON THE STRENGTH OF COGENT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APP ELLANT, PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE AMOUNT AND NATURE OF INCOME DECLARED IS GETTING SUBSTANTIATED BY THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 7. HEAVING GONE THROUGH THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES , WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE FIND INGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED IN ITS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS TO 4 ITA NO. 140 / RPR /201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 1 0 SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER READS AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. HAS DISBELIEVED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS OF SALES OF SALES OF TIMBER NOR HAS FILED ANY DETAILS OF EXPENSES. ON THE C ONTRARY, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE HEAD WISE DETAILS WAS DULY MENTIONED IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT FILED WITH THE A.O. DETAILS OF SALE OF TIMBER AND DETAILS OF EXPENSES WAS DULY MAINTAINED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WAS DULY PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. FOR EX AMINATION. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT RELATED DOCUMENTS SUCH AS PERMISSION FOR CUTTING OF TREES, FORM B - I EVIDENCING HOLDING OF LAND AND FORM B - I EVIDENCING HOLDING OF LAND AND FORM P - II EVIDENCING PARTICULARS OF NATURE OF CROP OBTAINED WAS PRODU CED BEFORE THE AO. 8. SO, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT SUFFER ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL INFIRMITY TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. THE PAPER BOOK SHOWN TO US DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS CONTAINS ALL THE DETAILS WHICH WER E REQUIRED TO ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE SAME WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, PARTICULARLY BEFORE THE AO, THERE WAS NO REASON TO REJECT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT POINTING OUT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE INCORRECT. THE AO HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITHOUT CONDUCTING VERIFICATION AND COLLECTING EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CI T(A). WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE SOLE GROUND OF THE REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 5 ITA NO. 140 / RPR /201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 09 - 1 0 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH MAY , 2018 . SD/ - SD/ - ( N.K. BILLAIYA) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RAIPUR, DATED: 25 / 05 / 201 8 ALINDRA, PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , RAIPUR / DR, ITAT, RAIPUR 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, RAIPUR