Subramanian Sivaraj, Coimbatore V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 4(2), Coimbatore

ITA 1462/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9158 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANATH KUMAR RAHA

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ ITA NO.1462/CHNY/2018 # $%# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI SUBRAMANIAN SIVARAJ, 2/341A, PONNUSAMY GOUNDER THOTTAM, KALAMLPALAYAM, THEETHIPALAYAM, COIMBATORE 641 010. PAN : BEBPS 2553 E V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD - 4(2), COIMBATORE. ('(/ APPELLANT) ()*'(/ RESPONDENT) '( + , / APPELLANT BY : NONE )*'( + , / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANATH KUMAR RAHA, JCIT - $ + ./ / DATE OF HEARING :03.07.2019 01% + ./ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.07.2019 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -3, COIMBATORE , DATED 13.02.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS POSTED ON SEVERA L OCCASIONS. INITIALLY, THE APPEAL WAS POSTED ON 04.10.2018. SU BSEQUENTLY, IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 19.11.2018. ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASS ESSEE, THE APPEAL 2 I.T.A. NO.1462/CHNY/18 WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 03.07.2019. THE LD. REPRESE NTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN NOTE OF THE DATE OF ADJOURN MENT BY MAKING AN ENDORSEMENT IN THE APPEAL FOLDER. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 03.07.2019, NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, I HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCE EDED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. SHRI SANATH KUMAR RAHA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL IN COME TO THE EXTENT OF 27,74,849/-. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS OWNED BY HIM, ACCORDING TO THE L D. D.R., THE ADANGAL EXTRACT WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH THE CULTIVATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT BANANA WAS CULTIVATED IN 6.3 1 ACRES OF LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR THE ADANGAL EXTRACT FR OM THE STATE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHICH DISCLOSES THAT THE BANANA WAS NOT CULTIVATED IN THE LAND WHEREIN BANANA WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CULTIVATED. MOREOVER, IN RESPECT OF THE LAND WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE CULTIVATED CROPS, MANY OF THE LANDS WERE NOT CULTIVATED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS TAKEN SOME OF THE LANDS ON LEASE FOR CU LTIVATION. AFTER CONSIDERING ADANGAL EXTRACT AND PART OF CULTIVATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ENTI RE INCOME OF 3 I.T.A. NO.1462/CHNY/18 27,74,849/- COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EARNED FROM CULTIVA TION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT 10 LAKHS IS NOT PART OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ACCOR DINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT A SUM OF 10 LAKHS OUT OF 27,74,849/- WAS NOT FROM AGRICULTURE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TAXABLE INCOME. 4. I HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY MATERIA L BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF CULTIVATION OF BANANA AND CROPS AS CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. STATE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES ARE MAINTAINING THE CULTIVATION ACCOUNT. IN FACT, THE VILLAGE ADMI NISTRATIVE OFFICER IS KEEPING THE ADANGAL, WHICH IS OTHERWISE KNOWN AS VI LLAGE ACCOUNT NO.2, WITH RESPECT TO CULTIVATION. THE ADANGAL EXTRACT A S RECEIVED FROM THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISCLO SES NO SUCH CULTIVATION OF BANANA AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. INSPITE OF THESE MATERIALS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO DISALLOW ONLY 10 LAKHS. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ALSO ADM ITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT 10 LAKHS WAS NOT PART OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4 I.T.A. NO.1462/CHNY/18 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH JULY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3! /DATED, THE 5 TH JULY, 2019 KRI. + ).45 65%. /COPY TO: 1. '( /APPELLANT 2. )*'( /RESPONDENT 3. - 7. () /CIT(A)-3, COIMBATORE 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, COIMBATORE 5. 5$8 ). /DR 6. 9# : /GF.