Shri Prakash Chand Jain, V. Income Tax Officer-1,

ITA 193/JAB/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 19322914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHIR KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: G N PUROHIT
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, S.M.C., JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.193/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI PRAKASH CHAND JAIN, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - I, RAHAT GARH BUS STAND, SAGAR (M.P.) SAGAR (M.P.) (PAN: ABMPJ 2084 L). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.N. PUROHIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.09.2014 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2013 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 FOR THE A.Y. 2005- 06. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS :- - THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.75,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE AGRICULTURE INCOME S HOWN BY THE ADDITION OF RS.75,000/- SHOULD BE DELETED. - WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ADDITION OF RS.75,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY BENEFIT OF SUCH INCOME. THE HE AD OF INCOME 2 ITA NO.193/JAB/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 CANNOT BE CHANGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AD DITION SHOULD BE DELETED. - ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY ARISE AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.75,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. VIDE LETTER DATED 16.03.2007 IT WAS STAND BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LA ND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BEING USED BY SHRI KOMAL CHAND JAIN FOR AGRICULTURA L OPERATIONS FOR SAFED MOOSLI. A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WAS ALSO FURNISHED TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE SHRI K OMAL CHAND JAIN, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DO SO. IT WAS IN THIS BACKGROUND, NOTIN G THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE SHRI KOMAL CHAND JAIN NOR THE EVIDENCE OF O WNERSHIP AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE JECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEED ED TO TREAT THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIE D THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN THE C OURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE A SSESSEE MADE HIS ELABORATE 3 ITA NO.193/JAB/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 SUBMISSIONS INCLUDING CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REMAND REPORT. IN THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED SHRI KOMAL CHAND JAIN AND HI S STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. THE ASSESSEE GAVE EVIDENCES TO TH E EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAMILY OWNED 6.53 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF WHICH 4.95 A CRES IS HELD IN THE JOINT NAME OF SHRI KOMAL CHAND JAIN, SHRI PRAKASH CHAND JAIN & SMT. RANI BAHU WHEREAS 1.35 ACRES OF THE LAND WAS IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAME O F PRAKASH CHAND JAIN. A COPY OF THE KHASRA AND KATONI WAS ALSO PRODUCED. LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT WHILE THERE IS A REASONABLE EVIDENCE OF ASSESSEE OW NING THE LAND AS ALSO OF THE AGREEMENT WITH SHRI KOMAL CHAND JAIN IT DOES NOT P ROVE THAT SAFED MOOSLI WAS CULTIVATED ON THE SAID LAND AND EXPENDITURE FOR THE SAME SUCH AS SEEDS AND PESTICIDES ETC. INCURRED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE T HAT THE PRODUCE SOLD FOR RS.2,00,000/- AND THAT THERE IS NO CERTIFICATE FROM THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO NOTED THA T CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED BY SARPANCH BUT HE HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CERTIFY T HE THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED OF THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4 ITA NO.193/JAB/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 4. SHRI PUROHIT, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINT ED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS NOT ONLY THAT SHRI KOMAL CHAN D JAIN WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HE HAS ALSO CONFIRMED ON STAT EMENT UNDER OATH THE AGREEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH SHRI KOMAL CHAND JAIN. HE HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE UNDER WHICH AGRICULTURAL OPERATIO NS WERE CARRIED OUT. 5. LD. COUNSEL INVITES MY ATTENTION TO THE STATEMEN T DATED 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 RECORDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COPY OF WHICH PRODUCED BEFORE ME IS PLACED AT PAGE NOS.13 AND 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. MY ATTENT ION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE COPY OF KHASRA KATONI WHICH IS PART OF REVENUE RECORD AN D COPY OF WHICH PRODUCED BEFORE ME IS PLACED AT PAGE NO.16 OF THE PAPER BOOK . LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT BOTH THE OBJECTIONS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE SATISFIED AND, AS SUCH, THERE IS NO REASONABLE BASIS FOR NOT TREATING THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 6. AS REGARDS OBSERVATION MADE BY THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CERTIFICATION IS D ONE BY SARPANCH, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN AS MUCH A S THE FACT OF CULTIVATION OF SAFED MOOSLI IS EVIDENCED BY ENTRY IN COLUMN NO.14 IN KHA SRA KATONI. LD. COUNSEL ALSO 5 ITA NO.193/JAB/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 INVITES MY ATTENTION TO AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI KOMAL CHA ND JAIN WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO. 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE BASIS OF THESE EVI DENCES, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THERE IS REASONABLE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT A GRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT ON THE LAND IN QUESTION BY SHRI KOMAL C HAND JAIN AND THAT SHRI KOMAL CHAND JAIN HAS CONFIRMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT HE HAS PAID RS.75,000/- IN CONSIDERATION OF HAVING USED ASSESSE ES LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE IS NO GOOD REASON FOR NOT TREATING THE SAID RS.75,000/- AS AGR ICULTURAL INCOME. 7. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HA ND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE RE IS NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER TO SHOW THAT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS ACTUALLY SOLD. NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED TOWARDS SEEDS AND PESTICIDES ETC. IT IS ALSO IMPOR TANT ACCORDING TO THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT SHRI KOMAL CHAND J AIN IS REAL BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY AT TH E ASSESSMENT STAGE. WHATEVER EVIDENCES WHICH WERE GIVEN AT THE STAGE OF COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSES SMENT STAGE ITSELF. HE THUS URGES ME TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND NOT TO INTERFERE. 6 ITA NO.193/JAB/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 8. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID OWN AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH IS EVIDENCED BY REVENUE REC ORDS, AND THAT AGRICULTURAL OPERATION BY WAY OF CULTIVATION OF SAFED MOOSLI WER E CARRIED OUT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE AS IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY SHRI KOMAL CHAN D JAIN THAT HE HAS PAID RS.75,000/- AS CONSIDERATION FOR USE OF AGRICULTURA L LAND FOR CARRYING OUT THIS OPERATION. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN MY CONSID ERED VIEW, SO FAR AS RS.75,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERN ED, IT IS CLEARLY IN THE NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SHRI KOMAL CHAND JAIN HAS APP EARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HIS STATEMENT IS DULY RECORDED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND NO INCONSISTENCY IS POINTED OUT IN THE SAME. AS FOR L D. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES OBJECTION FOR ADMISSION OF NEW EVIDENCE, IT IS IMPO RTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THAT EVIDENCES WERE ACCEPTED BY FIRST TIME BY LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THAT. THERE IS THUS NO INFIRMITY IN ACCEPTANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THIS CIRCUMSTANCES AND BEARING IN MIND THE ENTIR ETY OF THE CASE, I UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT RS.75,000/-, WHICH HE HAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE, A S AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 7 ITA NO.193/JAB/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 9. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 26 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014. SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 26 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4) CIT CONCERNED 5) D.R., ITAT, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR