Mr. M S Umesh, Prop: Sri Savithri Shankar Transports, Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1) Present Ward-6(4)(4), Bangalore

ITA 1461/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5567 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENUGADEVI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1460, 1461/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2011-12, 2012-13 MR. M. S. UMESH, PROP: SRI SAVITHRI SHANKAR TRANSPORTS, B B ROAD, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 562110. PAN : AAOPU8727C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1)-PRESENT WARD-6(4)(4), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560 095. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. RENUGADEVI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 06.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.02.2018 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) ON COMMON GROUNDS. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.1460/BANG/2017: 1. THAT, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, IN SO FOR AS IS PRE- JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE APPELLANT, IS BAD AND ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN DETERM INING THE TAXABLE INCOME BY ADDING/DISALLOWING A PORTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES', DISBELIEVING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCED FURNISHED IN SUPPORT THER EOF WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY VALID REASON WHAT SO EVER. ITA NOS.1460, 1461/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. THAT, IN SPITE OF THE SPECIFIC REQUEST OF THE AP PELLANT FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FURNISH FURTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHO SEN TO CONCLUDE THE ASSESSMENT BY DISALLOWING A PORTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AN D TREATING THE SAME AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AND BRINGING TO TAX. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT FURNISHED THE 'RECORD OF RIGH TS' (RTC) ISSUED BY THE STATE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND HOL DINGS AND THE CROPS GROWN, WHERE IN THE ISSUING AUTHORITY HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT 'AS TH E CURRENT YEAR CROP DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED THE EARLIER YEAR CROP GROWN ARE MENTIONED ', HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE QUALIFICATION OF THE STATE AUT HORITIES AND THERE BY ERRONEOUSLY DISBELIEVED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED TO M AKE ADDITIONS TO RETURNED INCOME. 5. THAT, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AN D FACTS BY DISALLOWING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT ON ES TIMATION/ADHOC BASIS WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER. EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO O NE ANOTHER AND THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND OR OT HERWISE MODIFY ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 06.02.2018 BU T NONE APPEARED DESPITE VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. WE THEREFORE HAD NO OPTION B UT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX-PARTE AND ACCORDINGLY REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAD ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE IT IN DETAIL AND SINCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY THEREIN, WE CONF IRM HIS ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE. DATED: 9 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. /NS/* ITA NOS.1460, 1461/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.