P.Yasoda, Visakhapatnam V. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, Visakhapatnam

ITA 181/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8714 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEBAKUMAR SONOWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Validity of assessment
• Section: 69; 132

Judgement Text

ITA NO.178 TO 182/VIZAG/2013 P. YASODA, VISAKHAPATNAM 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . .. . . . . . ' , % BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NOS.178 TO 182/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 TO 2010-11) P. YASODA VISAKHAPATNAM ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM [PAN NO. AIXPP2350D ] ( ' / APPELLANT) ( ()' / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI I. KAMA SASTRY, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEBA KUMAR SONOWAL, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06.03.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.03.2018 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS)-I {CIT(A)}, HYDERABAD VIDE ITA NOS.0386 TO 0390/CC-2, VIZAG/CIT(A)- I/11-12 DATED 27.12.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 006-07 TO 2010-11. SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMO N, THEY ARE CLUBBED, ITA NO.178 TO 182/VIZAG/2013 P. YASODA, VISAKHAPATNAM 2 HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED-OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMM ON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS.178 TO 181/VIZAG/2013: (A.Y. 2006-07 TO 200 9-10) 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS RELA TED TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AMOUNTING TO ` 50,000/- OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 3.00 LAKHS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING AGRI CULTURAL INCOME, THE A.O. DISALLOWED ` 50,000/- OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON ` 3 LAKHS AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 21.36 ACRES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED PATTADAR PASS BOOKS, VAO CERTIFICATE EVID ENCING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDINGS. THE VAO CERTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CULTIVATING EUCALYPTUS GARDEN WHICH IS USED FOR THE PAPER AND TIMBER INDUSTRY AND AVERAGE INCOME FOR 3 YEARS IS ` 70,000/- PER ACRE WHICH WORKS OUT TO APPROXIMATELY ` 23,500/- PER ANNUM. IN 4.30 ACRES IT IS ITA NO.178 TO 182/VIZAG/2013 P. YASODA, VISAKHAPATNAM 3 CERTIFIED BY THE VRO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CULTIVATI NG MANGO GARDEN AND AVERAGE INCOME PER YEAR IS ` 24,000 PER ACRE IN A TOTAL THE ASSESSEE OWNS 21.36 ACRES AND AS PER THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN B Y THE VRO/VAO, THE AVERAGE AGRICULTURAL INCOME PER YEAR WOULD BE MORE THAN ` 3 LAKHS. THOUGH THE A.O. ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 2.5 LAKHS, HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 50,000/- AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON ESTIMATION BASIS WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS OWNING 21.36 ACRES AND THE VRO AND VAO HAVE CERTIFI ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CULTIVATING THE EUCALYPTUS GARDENS AND MANGO GARDENS, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO SUSPECT THE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. D.R. DID NOT BRING ANY EVIDE NCE ESTABLISH THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS LESS THAN ` 3.00 LAKHS FOR THE LAND HOLDING OF 21.36 ACRES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT F IND ANY REASON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND THE SAME IS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) A ND ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND WITH REGAR D TO THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS, WE C ONSIDER IT NOT NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THE ASSESSEES GROUND ON TE CHNICAL ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT, ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ITA NO.178 TO 182/VIZAG/2013 P. YASODA, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.4 WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.178 TO 181/VIZAG/2013 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.182/VIZAG/2013: 7. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. GROUND NO.2 IS RELATED TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AMOUNTING TO ` 50,000/- WITH REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IN EARLIER PARAGRAPHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 2009-10 AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) I S SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS DELETED AND ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO.3 & 4 ARE RELATED TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. RELATING TO THE GOLD AND JEWELLERY U/S 69 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS 'THE ACT'). DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN GROUP CASES OF SLC PROJECTS LTD., THE RE SIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI SUBBA RAJU WAS ALSO SEARCHED AND THE INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL EVIDENCING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS, DOCUMENTS W AS FOUND AND ITA NO.178 TO 182/VIZAG/2013 P. YASODA, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE IS WIFE OF SRI SUBBA RAJU AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE GOLD, JEWELLERY WEIGHING 1190 GMS. WAS FOUND TO BE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR THE INVESTMENT OF GOLD AND JEWELLERY AND THE ASSESSEE E XPLAINED THAT A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE ASSE SSEES BUSINESS PREMISES ON 27.4.1988 AND THE GOLD AND JEWELLERY OF 349 GMS WAS FOUND WHICH IS SAID TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FROM 1988 . THE REMAINING GOLD WAS SAID TO BE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE OR AC QUIRED BY INHERITANCE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE A.O. ALLOWED 500 GMS AS PER THE BOARD CIRCULAR AND BROUGHT TO TAX THE REMAINING 690 GMS VALUED AROUND ` 8,85,960/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 10. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITT ED THAT 349 GMS GOLD WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ON 27.4.1988, WHICH REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE GOLD FOUND WEIGHING AROUND 1190 G MS. WITH REGARD TO THE REMAINING JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE GOLD WAS RECEIVED AS A GIFT FROM HIS MOTHER AND SOME GOLD WA S RECEIVED FROM MOTHER-IN-LAW AND GOLD COINS WERE PURCHASED FROM BA NK OF INDIA ON ITA NO.178 TO 182/VIZAG/2013 P. YASODA, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 6.8.2008 WEIGHING 120 GMS AND ICICI BANK ON 19.10.2 006. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O. AND DULY ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SOURCES WERE EXPLAINED FOR ACQUIRING THE GOLD JEWELLERY. HOWEVER, ON CAREFUL VERIFICATION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE GOLD JEWELLERY O F 690 GMS WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE EXPLAINED SOURCES. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE SOURCES OF GOLD JEWELLERY ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE I SSUE AFRESH ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY THE ISSUE IS SET A SIDE AND RE MITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE ON MERITS. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.182/VIZAG/2013 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 9 TH MAR18. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . .. . . . . . ' ) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 09.03.2018 VG/SPS ITA NO.178 TO 182/VIZAG/2013 P. YASODA, VISAKHAPATNAM 7 )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT P. YASODA, 50-104-2, PLOT NO.A-2 0, TPT COLONY, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VIS AKHAPATNAM 3. + / THE CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A)-I, HYDERABAD 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM