Pushpa Sohanlalji Fomra, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(3), CHENNAI

ITA 2134/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9626 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR IRS
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& ' [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NOS.2133, 2134, 2135 & 2136/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 AND 2012-2013. PUSHPA SOHANLALJI FOMRA, NO.123, FOMRA BUILDING, GOVINDAPPA NAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI 600 001. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 12(3) CHENNAI. [PAN AAAPF 0595K] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. ABHISHEK MURALI, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, IRS, ADDL. CIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 12-12-2018 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-12-2018 / O R D E R PER BENCH:- THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDERS DATED 17.05.2018 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS)- 13, CHENNAI. GROUNDS TAKEN FOR ALL THE YEARS ARE C OMMON EXCEPT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013, WHERE THE GROUND ASSAILI NG REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS NOT HERE. ITA NO.2133 TO 2136/18 . :- 2 -: 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTE D THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ON HER CLAIM OF AGR ICULTURAL INCOME, BEING DISBELIEVED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND BEING CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED CASH CREDIT. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISBELIEVED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR A REASON THAT LAND FROM WHICH SUCH INCOME WAS CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE WAS CATEGORIZED AS PUNCTURED LAND BY THE TAHSILDAR IN THE ADANGAL RECORDS. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT DONE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ALSO. ACCORDING TO HIM, TH E MATTER HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THIS TRIBUNAL HAD R EMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, SO THAT ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER U/S.131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). AC CORDING TO HIM, SIMILAR DIRECTIONS COULD BE GIVEN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THOUGH THE ASSES SEE HAS QUESTIONED THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING IN ITS APPEALS FOR AS SESSMENT YEARS 2009- ITA NO.2133 TO 2136/18 . :- 3 -: 10 TO 2011-12, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DID NO T PREFER ANY ARGUMENTS ON SUCH GROUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS A SSAILING THE REOPENING ARE DISMISSED AS NOT ARGUED. COMING TO TH E QUESTION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME BEING CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSE D CASH CREDIT, WE FIND THAT SIMILAR AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE VERY SAME LAND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ALSO. IN THE SAID YEAR ALSO, SUCH CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED AND AN ADDITIO N WAS MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. WHEN THE MATTER REACHED T HIS TRIBUNAL, THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS DECISION DATED 20.12.2017 IN ITA NO.2243/MDS/2017 HAD HELD AT PARA 6 AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE, THE OWNING OF AGR ICULTURAL LAND IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. FURT HER, IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IN EARLIER YEARS, THE DEC LARED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. BUT, ONLY IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION, THE SAME INCOME WAS NOT ACCEPTED AS AGRICULTURAL IN COME. THERE WAS A STATEMENT RECORDED FROM VAO U/S.131 OF THE ACT AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRES TO PROVI DE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO BE GIVEN TO THE PARTY TO CROSS EXAMI NE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE VAO, IF SUCH THIRD PARTY STATEME NTS RELIED UPON BY A.O TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. HENCE, IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I AM INCLINED TO REMIT THE ENT IRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE COPY OF SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED FROM VAO U/S.131 OF THE ACT TO ASSESSEE AN D ALSO TO CONSIDER THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE AS SESSEE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS TO COME TO CONCLUSION FOR PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THIS ISSUE. WITH THIS OBSERVATIO N, I REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT ISSUE NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AFRESH BY THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR ITA NO.2133 TO 2136/18 . :- 4 -: THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS ALSO. WE THEREFORE S ET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT THE QUEST ION REGARDING VERACITY OF THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILAR DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ARE GIVEN HEREALSO. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED:12TH DECEMBER, 2018 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. +,' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF