Smt. J.Ilavarassi, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 200/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6504 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G NARAYANASWAMY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 200/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. J. ILAVARASSI, 36, MANNAI NAGAR, MANNARGUDI-641 001. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(2), CHENNAI. (PAN: AAGPI5670J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. NARAYANASWAMY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 148/09-10 DATE D 01-11-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. SHRI G. NARAYANASWAMY, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, LEARNED SR.DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS DERIVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS ALSO INCOME FROM I.T.A. NO.200/MDS/2011 2 OTHER SOURCES REPRESENTING BANK INTEREST AND BUSINE SS INCOME IN THE FORM OF HIRE CHARGES AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN HAD DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXT ENT OF ` 60,000/-. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TREATED T HE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HOLDING TH AT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING CROPS CULTIVATED, EXTENT OF LAND HOLDING AND DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL BEF ORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS OWNER OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN RISHIYUR VILLAGE BESIDES 1/7 TH SHARE IN THE FAMILY LANDS AT PERUGAVAZHANDAN VILLAGE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAD BEEN ACCEPTED AT ` 11,000/- PER ACRE FOR 15 ACRES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE FAMILY LANDS AT PERUGAVAZHANDAN VILLAGE WAS LEASED OUT AND THE 1/7 TH SHARE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO. IT WAS T HE SUBMISSION THAT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAD BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIE R YEARS, THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRI CULTURAL INCOME WAS LIABLE TO BE PROVED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF THE CROP GROWN OR THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS LEASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS, AT LEAST CONFIRMATION LETTERS O R THE LEASE DEEDS COULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, JUST BECAUSE IN I.T.A. NO.200/MDS/2011 3 AN EARLIER YEAR AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAD BEEN ACCEPT ED, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR EVERY YEAR. IT WAS THE SUBM ISSION THAT NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LEARNED CIT(A) OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS LIABLE TO BE UPHELD. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO S HOWS THAT EVEN BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY NO DETAILS IN REGARD TO THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME WERE PRODUCED. EVEN BEFORE US NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED OTHER T HAN A STATEMENT THAT THERE HAS BEEN LEASE OF THE FAMILY LANDS AND THAT THE TRI BUNAL ITSELF HAD ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT ` 11,000/- PER ACRE FOR 15 ACRES DURING THE EARLIER YEARS. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, JUST BECAUSE AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAD BEEN ACCEPTED FOR AN EARLIER YEAR, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AGRICUL TURAL INCOME SHOULD BE AVAILABLE EVERY YEAR. A CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME MUST BE SUPPORTED BY SOME EVIDENCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR BEFORE US. IN THE CIRC UMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS AGR ICULTURAL INCOME OF ` .60,000/-. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE F INDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS I.T.A. NO.200/MDS/2011 4 ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERF ERENCE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30/06/2 011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 30 TH JUNE, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE