BHAVNABEN KRISHNAKUMAR BHATU, MUMBAI V. ITO 25(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1991/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79119 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Onus to prove

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 1991/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) BHAVNABEN KRISHNAKUMAR BHATU 402, LAXMI APT. NO.1, M. G. CROSS ROAD NO.4, KANDIVALI (W), MUMBAI-400 067 / VS. ITO-25(3)(1) MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AADPB 8500 H ( /APPELLANT ) : ( !' / RESPONDENT ) # $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH !' # $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. M. KESH KAMAT % &'( # )* / DATE OF HEARING : 16.04.2014 +,- # )* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.06.2014 . / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-35, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SH ORT) DATED 04.01.2012, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A. Y.) 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.10.2010. 2 ITA NO. 1991/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) BHAVNABEN KRISHNAKUMAR BHATU VS. ITO 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E, AN INDIVIDUAL, RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS.7.29 LACS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, INCLUDING RS. 3,73,100/- BY WAY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. A SCRUTINY OF HER PAST RETURNS BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER (A.O.) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REVEALED AGRICULTURAL INCOME RANGING BETWEEN RS.1.70 LACS AND RS.1.96 LACS FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THREE YE ARS, AS WELL AS AT RS.1.95 LACS FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE INCREASE THEREIN FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF CATTLE FEED (NIRAN) AT RS.1,87,5 00/-. THE SAME WAS, HOWEVER, FOUND UNACCEPTABLE IN-AS-MUCH AS THE SAID INCIDENT COULD NOT BE FOR A PARTICULAR YEAR ONLY, SO THAT THE UPSURGE IN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE CURRENT YEAR REMAINED UNEXPLAINED, WHICH STOOD CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES, WHILE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,85,600/-, DISCLOSED AS SALE OF GROUN DNUT, AS AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED IN APPEAL FOR THE REASON THAT THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE, WHICH REMAINED THE SAME AS BEFORE THE A.O., IN ANY MANNER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. WITHOUT DOUBT, THE ONUS TO PROVE ITS RETURN, AND THE CLAIMS PREFERRED THEREBY, IS ONLY ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE IMPUGNE D AMOUNT AS REALIZED FROM THE SALE OF CATTLE FEED (NIRAN), AND WHICH HAS BEEN FURTHER EXP LAINED AS ARISING FOR THIS YEAR ONLY DUE TO HEAVY RAINFALL (REFER STATEMENT OF FACTS BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A)). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE INDEX OF THE PAPER-BOOK FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FURNISHING THE DETAILS OF THE SAID CASH SALE, VIZ. THE NAMES OF TH E PERSONS TO WHOM THE SAME STOOD SOLD; DATE; RATE; RECEIPTS, ETC. IT STANDS EXPLAINED (IN THE REMARKS COLUMN) THAT THE SAME WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. AS HE DID NOT REQUISI TION THE SAME. IN OUR VIEW, THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESS EES CLAIMS BY THE REVENUE, WHICH HAS HOWEVER NOT BEEN AT ANY STAGE. IT IS, WE MAY CL ARIFY, ONLY THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1.88 LACS, CLAIMED TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN- AS-MUCH AS IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF NIRAN (ALSO KNOWN AS KHOL), THAT IS IN DISPUTE. A S SUCH, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME (FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF R S.1,85,600/-, REALIZED THROUGH BY WAY 3 ITA NO. 1991/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) BHAVNABEN KRISHNAKUMAR BHATU VS. ITO OF SALE OF GROUNDNUT) IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND, THEREF ORE, THE EVIDENCE/S LED TOWARD THE SAME BEFORE US ARE NOT RELEVANT. IN OUR VIEW, IT WOULD B E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ONLY BE PROPER THAT THE MATTER IS RES TORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O., WHO SHALL EXAMINE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM INCLUDING ITS EN TIRETY, INCLUDING THE EXIGIBILITY OF THE SAID INCOME TO EXEMPTION U/S.10, AND DECIDE THE SAM E PER A SPEAKING ORDER. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. /-)0 &12/) # 3# 456 7 8 ' 9 ) # ) :; ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 11, 2014 SD/- SD/- (I. P. BANSAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % ( MUMBAI; <& DATED : 11.06.2014 '.&../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. % =) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. % =) / CIT - CONCERNED 5. @'AB !)&C1 , * C1- , % ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. BD2 E( / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % ( / ITAT, MUMBAI