Dr. Subhash Chand Manglate, Parwanoo V. ITO, Parwanoo

ITA 160/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90251 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Rule of consistency; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 69; 148; 6

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 159 & 160/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 & 2004-05 DR. SUBHASH CHAND MANGALTE, MLA, VS. THE ITO, PARW ANOO PARWANOO (H.P.) PAN NO. AGCPK7530R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURINDER BABBAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K. GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 02/06/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.07.2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 3.11.2010 OF CIT(A) SHIMLA. 2. SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF B Y THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. FIRST WE SHALL DEAL WITH APPEAL IN ITA NO. 159/C HD/2011 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA, IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,50,000/- IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE/BUILDING. 2 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A), SHIMA IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT AGREEING TO T HE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VALUATION MADE BY THE WORTHY DVO AND CLAIM OF REBATES OF SELF-SUPERVI SION AND OTHER ITEMS. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED IN CONCUR RING WITH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ACCEPTING THE AGRI CULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,00,000/- AND THEREBY MAKING THE ADDITION AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURI NG ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCT ED A PROPERTY AT VILLAGE NERWA IN TEHSIL CHOPAL. THE CASE WAS REFERRED FOR VALUATI ON TO THE DVO, CHANDIGARH WHO ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS UNDER;- SR. NO. FINANCIAL YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSED COST (AMOUNT IN RS.) 1 1999-00 2000-01 39,80,415/- 2 2000-01 2001-02 45,83,608/- 3 2001-02 2002-03 24,12,374/- 4 2002-03 2003-04 20,50,517/- 5 2003-04 2004-05 12,06,186/- IT WAS NOTICED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 20,50,517/-. A NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED. IN RESPO NSE, NO RETURN WAS FILED. AFTER MANY NOTICES, ULTIMATELY RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTI CE U/S 148 WAS FILED. ON THE BASIS OF THIS RETURN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTLY THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 20,50,517/- AS WELL AS SOURCE OF THE SAME. IN RESPO NSE, IT WAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED TOTAL INVESTMENT A RS. 1,18,00,000/- A ND HAS ALREADY GIVEN YEAR WISE JUSTIFICATION AS UNDER;- 3 S R . NO. FINANCIAL YEAR INVESTMENT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSESSED COST BY THE DVO 1. 1999-00 3300000 3980415 2. 2000-01 3800000 4583508 3. 2001-02 2000000 2412374 4. 2002-03 1700000 2050517 5. 2003-04 200000 1206186 TOTAL 11800000 14233000 5. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS DEFEC TS IN THE VALUATION REPORTS AND EVEN SELF SUPERVISION CHARGES OF 7% HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED. FURTHER, WHILE EXPLAINING THE SOURCES IT WAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A LOAN FROM DR. VINOD SHANKAR AMOUNTING TO RS. 13 LAKHS AND LOAN FROM HPS CB LTD RS. 11 LAKHS. A SUM OF RS. 2,30,000/- OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS A LSO STATED TO HAVE BEEN USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DEALT WITH THESE ISSUES VIDE PARAS 2.3 AND 2.4 WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 2.3 THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-0 5 HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED AND THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT AS ESTIMATED BY THE DVO WAS HELD AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 6 9 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. AS THE INVESTMENT OF RS.20,50, 517/- PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE ASSES SEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE SOURCE OF I NVESTMENT MADE IN THIS YEAR VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 29. 8.2007. IN REPLY TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.25,00,000/- WAS MADE IN THIS YEAR. HE HAS ALSO RAISED SOME OBJECTIONS ON THE VALUATION MADE B Y THE DVO. AS REGARDS VALUATION MADE BY THE DVO OF ASSESS EE'S ENTIRE HOUSE AT RS. 1,42,33,000/-, THE SAME WAS CON SIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 TO 2002-03 AND FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED ACC ORDINGLY. THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESS ON THE VALUATIO N MADE BY 4 THE DVO WERE NOT FOUND TENABLE. THE VALUATION OF CO ST OF CONSTRUCTION OF ASSESSEE'S HOUSE HAS DULY BEEN CONF IRMED BY WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN EARL IER YEARS. THE ADDITIONS MADE INCLUDING ENHANCED COST O F CONSTRUCTION AS ESTIMATED BY THE DVO HAS BEEN CONFI RMED. IN THIS YEAR ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED THE VALUA TION MADE BY THE DVO AND ALSO FILED SOME BILLS OF EXPENDITURE . IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE RECORDS, THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 2.4 THE MAIN OBJECTION AS TO THE VALUATION BY T HE DVO WAS - THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WAS STARTED I N THE YEAR 1998-99 WHEREAS THE DVO HAS ADOPTED THE FIRST YEAR AS 1999- 2000. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, WRONG RATES WERE APPLIED BY THE DVO. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT H E HAD INVESTED A SUM OF RS.11.50 LACS IN THE YEAR 1998-99 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILE ARRIVING AT THE ACTUAL COST OF CON STRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EV IDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. MOREOVER, NO DAY-TODAY RECORD OF EXPENDITURE ALONG WITH BILLS & VOUCHERS WAS PRODUCE D FOR VERIFICATION. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSE E WAS FOUND NOT ACCEPTABLE. AS REGARDS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT IT HAD HIMSELF SUPERVISED THE CONSTRUCTION; THEREFORE, SAV ED 10% TO 12.5% OF EXPENDITURE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED W ITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. SIMPLY FURNISHING FEW COPI ES OF BILLS DO NOT PROVE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WAS CARRIED OUT WITHOUT THE SERVICES OF AN ARCHITECT AND SUPERVISOR. MOREOVER T HE ASSESSEE IS A POLITICIAN WHO IS ALWAYS OUT IN THE FIELD TO C ONTACT THE PEOPLE & TO HAVE MEETINGS WITH OTHER POLITICIANS. I N SUCH AN EVERYDAY BUSY SCHEDULE, A POLITICIAN CANNOT HAVE TI ME TO SUPERVISE THE CONSTRUCTION REGULARLY. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE. FURTHER IT WAS CLA IMED THAT SOME MATERIAL LIKE SAND & BAJRI WAS PURCHASED FROM NALLAH/RIVER AND ALSO SHUTTERING ETC. WAS PROVIDED BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS & DEVOTEES APPEARS TO BE A CONCOCTED STOR Y AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME . THEREFORE, THE OBJECTIONS CHALLENGING THE VALUATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION MADE BY THE DVO ARE REJECTED. 5 THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISCUSSED LOAN FRO M DR. VINOD SHANKAR WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BECAUSE COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WER E NOT FILED. HOWEVER, LOAN FROM HPSCB LTD WAS ACCEPTED, THEREFORE, OUT OF THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST DURING THE YEAR AS ESTIMATED BY DV O AT RS. 20,50,517/-, A SUM OF RS. 11 LAKHS WAS REDUCED AND BALANCE OF RS. 9,50,517/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON APPEAL, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER WERE REITERATED. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT FLOOR W ISE RATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS NOT TAKEN ON PROPORTIONAL BASIS. FURTHER, REBATE CL AIMED AT 7.5% FOR SUPERVISION WAS ALSO NOT ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THESE I SSUES IN DETAIL. SHE ALSO ACCEPTED THE LOAN FROM DR. VINOD SHANKAR. HOWEVER, SINCE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN HOW EXCLUSIVELY THE AMOUNT WAS SPENT TOWARDS CONSTR UCTION OUT OF THIS LOAN, THE ADDITION WAS REDUCED TO RS. 3,50,000/- BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 17 LAKHS FROM RS. 20,50,000/-. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE NET ADDI TION OF RS. 3,50,000/-. 7. BEFORE US, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) WERE REITERATED. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TOWARDS VALUATION REPORTS. IT WAS POINT ED OUT THAT WITH REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION REPORT THAT COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THIR D FLOOR HAS BEEN TAKEN AT A VERY HIGH FIGURE RS. 6078/- PER SQUARE METER DESPITE THE FACT THAT HEIGHT WAS 3.03 METER WHEREAS FOURTH FLOOR IS AT HEIGHT OF 3.15 METER, TH E VALUATION OFFICER HAS HIMSELF TAKEN THE COST AT RS. 5409/- PER SQUARE METER. IT W AS ALSO CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE IS A POLITICIAN AND HAD GOOD CONTACTS, THEREFORE, MAT ERIAL WAS PURCHASED AT CONCESSIONAL RATES. THE BUILDING IS NORMALLY BEING UTILIZED AS A DHARAMSHALA AND LOT OF DEVOTEES WERE THERE TO HELP HIM TO SUPERVISE THE BUILDING AND, THEREFORE, SELF SUPERVISION CHARGES SHOULD BE ALLOWAAED AS A REBAT E @ 7.5%. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY. WE FIND FORCE IN THE OBJECTIONS THAT COST HAS BEEN TAKEN ON A HIGHER SID E FOR THIRD FLOOR. PAGES 3 TO 16 ARE THE COPY OF THE REPORT OF DVO. AT PAGE 11, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR VARIOUS FLOOR HAS BEEN TAKEN AS UNDER-_ FLOOR HEIGHT AREA RATE UNIT GROUND FLOOR 3.80 251.69 5,676.00 SQ.MTR 1,428,592 FIRST FLOOR 3.83 285.99 5,364.00 SQ.MTR 1,534,050 SECOND FLOOR 3.10 318.11 6,099.00 SQ.MTR 1,940,153 THIRD FLOOR 3.03 385.21 6,078.00 SQ.MTR 2,341,306 FOURTHS FLOOR 3.15 371.73 5,409.00 SQ.MTR 1,956,598 FIFTH FLOOR 3.15 395.59 5,409.00 SQ.MTR 2,139,746 SIXTH FLOOR 3.05 149.32 4328.00 SQ.MTR 646,257 SIXTH FLOOR 3.05 258.42 3,108.00 SQ.MTR 803,169 12,789,872 THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT COST OF THIRD FLOOR HA S BEEN TAKEN AT RS. 6078/- PER SQUARE METER WHERE THE HEIGHT IS 3.03 METER WHEREAS ON FOURTH AND FIFTH FLOORS WHERE HEIGHT IS 3.15 METER THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT RS. 5409/- PER SQUARE METER. WHEN THE HEIGHT IS LOWER, THE HI GHER COST IS NOT JUSTIFIED. MOREOVER, NO DEDUCTION HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR SELF SUPE RVISION CHARGES. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT VALUATION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS A MAT TER OF OPINION AND ESTIMATE AND NO TWO EXPERTS WOULD EVER REACH AT THE SAME ESTIMATE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ENDS OF THE JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IF THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COST IS REDUCED TO RS. 1 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) A ND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION. 7 10. GROUND NO.3: AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AGR ICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 2,82,109/-, COPY OF THE SALE DEED OF LAND MEASURING 22 BIGHAS AND 2 BISWAS PURCHASED IN 1993 WAS FLED AND IT WAS CLAIMED THAT SAME WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME AT RS. 82,110/- AND BALANCE INCOME SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS TRE ATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 11. ON APPEAL, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). 12. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT IN ALL PREVIOUS YEARS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE SAME LAND HAS BEEN AC CEPTED AT A HIGHER FIGURE. HE FILED COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FRAMED U/S 1 43(3) READ WITH SECTION 148 IN SOME CASES AND POINTED OUT THAT HIGHER AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAD ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR AGRICULTURAL INCOME 1999-2000 RS. 1,00,000/- 2000-2001 RS. 1,00,000/- 2001-2002 RS. 1,30,000/- 2002-2003 RS. 2,00,000 ALL THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN FRAMED U/ S 143(3) WHICH MEANS THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AFTER ENQUIRI ES. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, IN THE PRESENT YEAR A LSO, THE ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME BE TAKEN AT RS. 2,32,109/- AND BALANCE OF R S. 50,000/- SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND 8 DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS . 50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 160/CHD/2015 16. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA IS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,50,000/- IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE LD. ASSES SING OFFICER BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE / BUILDING. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT AGREEING TO THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VALUATION MADE BY THE WORTHY DVO AND CLAIM OF REBATES OF SELF-SUPERVI SION AND OTHER ITEMS. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED IN CONCUR RING WITH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ACCEPTING THE AGRI CULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,00,000/- AND THEREBY MAKING THE ADDITION AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 17. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT IN THIS YEAR ALSO THE ISSUE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION AROSE AND INITIALLY ASSESSEE HAS SU BMITTED THAT HE HAS INCURRED A COST OF RS. 10 LAKHS WHEREAS THE SAME WAS VALUED AT RS. 12,06,186/-. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED A FINDIN G THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED COST OF RS. 2 LAKHS AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE HAD NO SOURCE , THEREFORE, RS. 12,06,186/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THIS ADDITION BY RS. 2 L AKHS BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THE COST OF RS. 2 LAKHS,. 19. BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES MADE SIMILAR ARGUMEN TS AS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 9 20. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON SIMILAR PRINCIPLE WE ESTIMATE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THIS YEAR AT RS. 11 LAK HS. NOW AS FAR AS SOURCE IS CONCERNED, IT SEEMS THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THE SOURCES BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER FROM THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION INCURRED AT RS. 11 LAKHS DURIN G THE YEAR. WE MAY NOTE THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN RETURNED BY THE ASSESS EE AT RS. 2,70,000/- WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 70,000/-. IT H AS BEEN ESTIMATED BY US AT RS. 2,30,000/- IN THE FOLLOWING PARAS AND, THEREFORE, T HE SAME SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED FOR EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCE FOR INVESTMENT IN COS T OF CONSTRUCTION. 21. GROUND NO.3 : THE ISSUE AND FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE SIMILAR AS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY US IN ABOVE NOTED APPEAL NO. 159/CHD/2011 AND APPLYING THE SAME PRINCIPLE, W E ESTIMATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THIS YEAR AT RS. 2,30,000/-. 22. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. 23. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH T HE YEARS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.7.2015 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 9 TH JULY, 2015 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR