DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s Sri. K. Kodandarami Reddy, Bangalore

ITA 199/BANG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68349 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KIRAN KATTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

ITA NO.199 OF 2013 K KODANDARAMI REDDY BANGALORE PAGE 1 OF 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE C BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.199/BANG/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(2) 5 TH FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE VS. SHRI K. KODANDARAMI REDDY, NO.547, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, 2 ND STAGE, 3 RD BLOCK, RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560094 PAN: ACKPR 6566 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI KIRAN KATTA, DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SURESH, CA DATE OF HEARING: 20/11/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/11/2013 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K. J.M. THIS APPEAL AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-I, BANGALORE DATED 23.11.2012. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2008-09. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERA TION IS WHETHER THE CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.13,65,000 MADE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, ENGAGED IN THE BUSI ENSS OF MANUFACTURE OF BRICKS. HE ALSO DERIVES AGRICULTURAL AND SALARY ITA NO.199 OF 2013 K KODANDARAMI REDDY BANGALORE PAGE 2 OF 5 INCOME. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.09.2008 DISCLOSING INCOME OF RS.25,82,0 50. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, VID E ORDER DATED 09.12.2010 FIXING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.52,1 2,671. ONE OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FROM INCOME OTHER SOURCES AMOUNTING TO RS.13,65,000, FOR THE REASON OF NON BELIEVING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ACCEP TING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME A ND MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,65,000 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES ARE AS FOLLOWS: I. IT IS A FACT, FROM THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RE VENUE OFFICER THAT THE LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DRYL ANDS. ON SUCH DRYLANDS, COMMERCIAL CROPS SUCH AS BANANA CANNOT BE CULTIVATED. II. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT THE COMPLETE DETA ILS SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE LANDS AND THE LANDS TAKEN ON LEASE. III. NONE OF THE LEASE AGREEMENTS/UNDERSTANDINGS ENTERED INTO WITH SO CALLED OWNERS OF THE LANDS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. IV. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DET AILS OF THE CROPS GROWN ON THE LAND CLAIMED TO BE OWNED AND HELD UNDER LEASE. V. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODCUED ANY OF THE DETAILS WI TH REGARD TO THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. VI. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF L EASE CHARGES PAID AGAINST THE LANDS TAKEN ON LEASE. ITA NO.199 OF 2013 K KODANDARAMI REDDY BANGALORE PAGE 3 OF 5 VII. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE GROWN COMMERCIAL CROPS BUT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH SALE PATTIES/SALE BILLS F OR HAVING SOLD THE CROPS CLAIMED TO HAVE GROWN. VIII. IT MUST ALSO BE MENTIONED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD DRYLANDS, THE BASIC FACTS SUCH AS RAINFALL IN THAT AREA DURING THE YEAR, CLIMATIV CONDITIONS, AVAILABILITY OF FERTILIZERS AND SEEDS AND OTHER EVENTS OF THE NATUR E HAVE TO BE EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED FOR ARRIVING AT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IX. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED HERE THAT THE YIELD OF AGRI CULTURAL OUTPUT CANNOT BE THE SAME YEAR AFTER YEAR. X. IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO MENTION HERE THAT IN VIEW O F THE SETTLED LAW THAT EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IS INDEPENDE NT IN ITSELF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO EXAMINE T HE FACTS AND CIRCULSTANCES OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR INDEPENDENTLY BEFORE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE, THE ENTIRE INCOME CLAIMED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, A MOUNTING TO RS.13,65,000 HAVE BEEN TREATED AS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST AUTHO RITY. THE CIT (A) AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE, REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FOLLOWIN G THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN ITA NOS.446 TO 450/BANG/2011 AND C.O NO.27 & 28/ BANG/ 2011 DATED, 9 TH MARCH, 2012 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE AG RICULTURAL ITA NO.199 OF 2013 K KODANDARAMI REDDY BANGALORE PAGE 4 OF 5 INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDI TION MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY VOUCHERS FOR EXPENSES AND NOT PRODUCED ANY RECEIPTS OR BILLS ETC., FOR THE SALE OF AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE REVEN UE OFFICER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OWNED ONLY DRYLANDS. 6. THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE CIT (A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE ISSUE, IN QUESTION, IS IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND HELD BY THE ASSESS EE CONTINUE TO BE HELD BY HIM FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUN AL IN THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS HIGHER THAN THE AGRICU LTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CURRENT ASS ESSMENT YEAR, HENCE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) IS PERFECT LY JUSTIFIED IN HIS CONCLUSIONS AND HAS CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDIT IONS MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED CIT (A), THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE REVENUE OFFICER WITH R EGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE B RUSHED ASIDE, BASED ON MERE SUSPICION, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ON RE CORD. THE ITA NO.199 OF 2013 K KODANDARAMI REDDY BANGALORE PAGE 5 OF 5 TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR (SUPRA) HAD HELD THAT THE AGRICULTU RAL INCOME OF RS.14,65,000 SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REASONABLE O N ESTIMATE BASIS. THEREFORE, AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS REASONABLE AND WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). HENCE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AS CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (JASON P. BOAZ) (GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE DATED 22 ND NOVEMBER,, 2013. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE