R.Vasanthi, Salem V. ACIT, Salem

ITA 2263/CHNY/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1050 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T S LAKSHMIVENKATARAMAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ..... I.T.A. NO. 2263 / MDS/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 SMT. R. VASANTHI, PROPX. SRI AMMAN TEXTILES, NO.2, A.A. ROAD, SALEM-1. PAN : AAYPR3824M (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE III, SALEM. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.S. LAKSHMIVENKATARAMAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ITS GRIEVANC E IS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ` 1,96,500/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT). 2. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND TRADING HANDLOOM AND SILK SAREES , HAD A TURNOVER OF ` 141.27 LAKHS WITH A NET PROFIT BEFORE DEPRECIATION ` 2.67 LAKHS FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED IN HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT, A SUM OF ` 8.99 LAKHS WHICH, AS PER ASSESSEE, WAS ITS I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 2 AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ASSESSEE CLAIMED OWNERSHIP OF 9.63 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT ERUMIAMPATTY AND PAPPAMBADI VI LLAGES IN DHARMAPURI DISTRICT AND ALSO CLAIMED LEASE OVER 7.2 8 ACRES OF LAND AT VIRUDASAMPATTY VILLAGE IN MELLAPPANUR, METTUR TALUK . AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM 9.63 ACR ES OF OWN LAND WAS ` 6,28,555/- AND FROM 7.28 ACRES OF LEASED LAND WAS ` 2,70,550/- TOTALLING TO ` 8.99 LAKHS. VIS--VIS CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOM E FROM OWN LAND, THE A.O. FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GR OSS RECEIPTS OF ` 6,76,580/- AGAINST WHICH EXPENSES CLAIMED WAS ` 48,025/- RESULTING IN NET INCOME OF ` 6,28,555/-. DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR FROM ASSESSEE REGARDING TYPES OF CROPS RAISED. ASSESSEE FILED EX TRACTS FROM STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND ALSO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN RE SPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ON EXAMINATION OF THE BOOKS, ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM AGRICULTURE PRODU CE WAS SHOWN DURING THE PERIOD 23.8.2001 TO 29.3.2002 AND EXPENS ES SPREAD OVER THE WHOLE YEAR. BREAK-UP OF THE AGRICULTURAL RECEI PTS OF ` 6,76,580/- WAS AS UNDER:- THE ABOVE DETAILS WERE COMPILED FROM THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. A. GROUND NUT RS. 1,13,690 B. PADDY RS. 3,15,200 C. COCONUT RS. 1,24,840 D. TURMERIC RS. 1,22,850 TOTAL RS. 6,76,580 I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 3 3. ON 14.3.2005, ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE ALONG WI TH ASSESSEES HUSBAND APPEARED BEFORE THE A.O. AND AS PER THE INF ORMATION GIVEN BY THEM TO THE A.O., THE YIELD FROM TURMERIC AND TA PIOCA WAS ` 90,000/- VIZ. ` 60,000/- FROM TURMERIC AND ` 30,000/- FROM TAPIOCA. FURTHER, THEY ALSO STATED THAT THE INCOME FROM SALE OF COCONUT WAS ` 62,500/- THUS ALTOGETHER TOTALLING TO ` 1,52,500/-. THUS, AS PER THE A.O., AGAINST THE CLAIM OF ` 6,76,580/- AS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHAT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE WH EN THEY APPEARED BEFORE HIM WAS ONLY ` 1,52,500/-. THIS DIFFERENCE WAS POINTED OUT WHEREUPON THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SHE HAD REARED 15 COWS WHICH GAVE AN INCOME OF ` 2,70,000/- FROM SALE OF MILK. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, SHE HAD ALSO RAISED VEGETABLES AND BA NANA TREES GIVING FURTHER SUM OF ` 1,26,000/- WHICH WAS USED FOR CURING AND BRINGING THE CROPS. ASSESSING OFFICER ANALYZED VAR IOUS EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ACCORDING TO HIM, INCOME RECEI VED BY HER FROM AGRICULTURE AND DAIRY FARM COULD BE SUMMARIZED AS U NDER:- A. COCONUT RS. 62,500 B. TURMERIC RS. 60,000 C. TAPIOCA RS. 30,000 D. BRINJAL RS. 18,000 E. LADIES FINGER AND OTHER VEGETABLES RS. 18,000 F. BANANA RS. 90,000 G. MILK RS. 2,70,000 TOTAL RS. 5,48,500 I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 4 4. THOUGH ASSESSEE CLAIMED VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL CRO PS TO HAVE BEEN RAISED AND THAT AMOUNTS WERE REALIZED ON SALE THEREFROM, NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R SUCH SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, WHATSOEVER. IN OTHER WORDS, EXCEPT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NOTHING WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN S UPPORT OF HER CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FURTHER, A.O. NOTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE BOOKS WAS AT GROSS VARIANCE WIT H WHAT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY HER REPRESENTATIVE WH EN THEY APPEARED BEFORE HIM. ACCORDING TO A.O., THERE WAS NOTHING REGARDING ANY PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF MILK APPEARING IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATION. A.O. ALSO OBTAINED A STATE MENT FROM VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WHEREIN HE MENTIONED THAT TH ERE WAS NO PERSONAL INSPECTION MADE BY HIM OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH HE HAD CERTIFIED THAT ASSES SEE WAS REARING 15 COWS. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE, IF AT ALL SHE HAD SO MANY COWS, SHE COULD HAVE SOLD THE MILK ONLY TO BULK BUYERS IN SALEM. BUT, ASSESSEE HAD NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE ANY SUCH SALE. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM OF 5 LTRS OF MILK FROM EACH OF THE 15 COWS FOR 300 DAYS REALIZING A S UM OF ` 2,70,000/- AT THE PRICE OF ` 12/- PER LITER WAS NOT BELIEVABLE SINCE SHE NEVER CLAIMED EXPENDITURE ON FODDER AND TO FEED THOSE COW S. ACCORDING TO I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 5 HIM, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT BASED ON INFORMATION G ATHERED FROM VETERINARY DEPARTMENT CLEARLY SHOWED THAT ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF ` 1,72,462/- FOR REARING THE COWS IN ADDITION TO MEDICAL EXPENSES OF ` 30,000/-. THUS, AFTER DEDUCTING A TOTAL EXPENSES OF ` 2,02,462/-, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE MAXIMUM INCOME FROM COWS REARED WOULD HAVE BEEN ONLY ` 67,538/-. VIS--VIS AGRICULTURAL OPERATION, A.O. W AS OF THE OPINION THAT WHAT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN HER REPRESENTA TIVE APPEARED BEFORE HIM ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND WAS CORRECT AND T HIS SUM OF ` 1,52,500/- AGGREGATED WITH THE INCOME OF ` 67,538/- FROM MILK TOTALLING TO ` 2,20,038/- WAS ACCEPTED BY HIM OUT OF THE TOTAL CL AIM OF ` 6,28,555/- AND RESULTINGLY THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS D ISALLOWED. THE ADDITION THUS CAME TO ` 4,08,517/-. 5. VIS--VIS INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM LEAS ED LAND, A.O. EXAMINED SMT. RUKMANI FROM WHOM ASSESSEE HAD ALLEGE DLY LEASED THE LAND BUT SHE DENIED ANY LAND BEING GIVEN BY HER ON LEASE TO ANYONE THOUGH SHE ACCEDED THAT THE SIGNATURE IN THE LEASE DEED FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HER. ACCORDING TO HER, IT WAS SIGNED AT THE INSTANCE OF HER SONS ON ` 2000/- BEING PAID TO HER AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON THAT HER SONS WERE DOING WEAVING WORK FO R ASSESSEES HUSBAND. AS PER SMT. RUKMANAI, THE POSSESSION WAS NEVER GIVEN TO I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 6 THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A CHAN CE TO CROSS EXAMINE SMT. RUKMANI, SHE REFRAINED FROM DOING SO. IT SEEMS ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT ABLE TO PROVE ANY AGRICULTURA L OPERATION HAVING BEEN DONE BY HER FROM THE LEASE LAND. THE A.O. THE REFORE TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM LEASE LAND TO BE SHAM AND ` 2,70,550/- WAS CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 6. EFFECTIVELY FROM TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM OWN AS WELL AS LEASED LAND, ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED ` 6,79,067/-. APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AND SUBSEQUENT LY BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL MET WITH NO SUCCESS. THIS TRIBUNAL IN PAR A 5 OF ITS ORDER ON ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 2386/MDS/2005, HELD AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE HA S ADMITTED INCOME OF RS.6,28,555/- AS AGRICULTURAL IN COME FROM 9.6 ACRE LAND, WHICH GIVES AN AVERAGE OF RS.60,000/- PE R ACRE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY SHOWN EXPENSES OF RS.48,000/- F OR FOUR CROPS, WHICH IS MEAGER. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BY WAY OF SALE BILLS TO SUPPOR T THE CONTENTION THAT INCOME OF RS.6,77,580/- WAS EARNED FROM OWN LAND. ON THE BASIS OF DISCREPANCIES POINTED BY ASS ESSING OFFICER WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTI FIED IN ESTIMATING INCOME OF RS.1,52,500/- FROM AGRICULTURE LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO GIVEN THE WORK OF EXPENS ES IN RESPECT OF DIARY INCOME. HE HAS ESTIMATED DIARY INCOME OF RS.67,538/-. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROV E FOR SALE OF MILK. THEREFORE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW FOR ESTIMATION OF DIARY INCOME AT RS.67,538/-. HEN CE, THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DIARY INCOME AT RS.2,20,038/- IS UPHELD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITIO N OF RS.4,08,517/- IS UPHELD. AS REGARDS THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 7 ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF LEASEHOLD LANDS, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS FOUND THAT THE OWNER OF LAND HAS DENIED TO HAVE GIV EN HER LANDS ON LEASE. THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED UNDER THE PRESS URE OF THE SONS OF THE OWNER OF LAND SMT. RUKMANI. SHE WAS AL SO UNDER OBLIGATION THAT HERE SONS WERE GIVEN COOLI WEAVING WORK BY ASSESSEES HUSBAND. MOREOVER, THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN THE CROPS RECORDED IN ADANGAL. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ADANGAL BEFORE US FOR OUR INSPECTION. ON THE BASIS OF THES E FACTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,70,550/- CREDITED IN TH E CAPITAL ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. 7. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE A.O. F OR, ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. ACCORDING TO A.O., ASSESSEE HAD NEVER PRODUCED ANY RECORDS RE LATING TO SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ALONG WITH RETURN AND LATER GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE C OURSE OF PROCEEDINGS WERE AT GREAT VARIANCE. ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE FOR SALE OF MILK NOR PRODUCE ANY BILLS FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. ASSESSEE NEVER PRODUCED ANY BILLS FOR SAL E OF PRODUCE FROM THE ALLEGEDLY LEASED PROPERTY NOR DID THE LESSOR CO NFIRM THE LEASE AT ALL. WHEN PUT ON NOTICE, REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY HER. ACCORDING TO HER, AL L NECESSARY DETAILS REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME WERE FURNISHE D AND JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE ENTIRE A GRICULTURAL INCOME OFFERED AND TREATED A PART OF IT AS NON-AGRICULTURA L, IT WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE TO TAKE A PRESUMPTION THAT THERE WAS ANY CONCEALMENT. I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 8 RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. G.R. RAJENDRAN (259 ITR 109). ASSESSEE IN OTHER WORDS PLEADED FOR DROPPING OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE A.O. WAS NOT IMPRESSED. ACCORDING TO HIM, EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTRARY TO FACTS. ASS ESSEE HAD FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATION AND EXPENSES CLAIMED BY HER WAS INSUFFICIENT WHEN COMPA RED TO HUGE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CARRIE D OUT. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREBY LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT THE RATE OF MINIMUM 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 8. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT REJECTION OF HER EXPLANATION ON AGRICULTUR AL INCOME COULD NEVER LEAD TO ANY PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT WARRAN TING LEVY OF PENALTY. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, ENTIRE CROPS GROWN AND INCOME REALIZED WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. IN SO FAR AS LEASED PROPERTY WAS CONCERNED, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE L ESSOR NEVER DENIED THE SIGNATURE IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT. FURTH ER, AS PER THE ASSESSEE, A PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ACC EPTED BY THE A.O. FROM SAME LAND IN EARLIER AS WELL AS SUCCEEDING YEA RS AND THE DISALLOWANCE HAVING BEEN BASED ON ESTIMATE, NO PENA LTY OUGHT TO I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 9 HAVE BEEN LEVIED. LD. CIT(APPEALS) GOING THROUGH T HE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, HELD AS UNDER:- 7. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING CIT VS. APSARA TALKIES (255 ITR 303) WHER EIN THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE FINDING OF CONCEALMENT CANNOT BE BASED ON VALUERS ESTIMATE. THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT A CASE WHERE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOU NT OF VALUERS REPORT. THEREFORE, THE ABOVE DECISION IS OF NO REL EVANCE TO THE PRESENT CASE. THE CASE OF CIT VS BAJRANG TRADING A ND SUPPLY COMPANY (187 ITR 299) IS ON THE SUBJECT OF DISBELIE VING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL EV IDENCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONDUCTE D DETAILED ENQUIRIES AND HAS COME TO THE DECISION BASED ON THE ENQUIRIES AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION. THEREFORE, TH E ABOVE CASE IS ALSO NOT RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE. THE APPELLA NT ALSO SRELIED ON THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS G.R. RAJENDRAN (259 ITR 109) WHEREIN IT IS STATED T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION O FFERED BY THE ASSESSEE THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED EXPLANATION IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) ISSUED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, VIDE LETTER DATED 22.11.06 AND THE EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE FINA LIZING THE PENALTY. IN FACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTION ED THE SAME IN THE PAGE NO.5 OF THE PENALTY ORDER DT. 29/12/06. THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PENALTY ORDER HAS BEEN MADE AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE OBJECT BEHIND ENACTMENT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) , READ WITH THE EXPLANATION INDICATES THAT THE SAID SECTIO N HAS BEEN ENACTED TO PROVIDE FOR A REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE . THE PENALTY UNDER THE SAID SECTION IS A CIVIL LIABILITY. WILFU L CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING THE CIVI L LIABILITY AS IS THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276C. WHILE CONSIDERING AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER MADE UNDER S ECTION 271(1)(C) WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED IS THE RE CORD WHICH THE OFFICER IMPOSING THE PENALTY HAD BEFORE HIM AND IF THAT RECORD I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 10 CAN SUSTAIN THE FINDING THERE HAD BEEN CONCEALMENT, THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE PENALTY. KEEPING IN M IND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE AND CONSIDERING T HE EXPLANATIONS ADDED TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IN THAT ENT IRETY THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING RETURNS. HE THUS CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 9. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R. STRONGLY ASSAILING T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, SUBMITTED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2003-04, SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE OF AGRICULTURAL INC OME AND IN ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT THE A VERAGE INCOME OF ` 39,500/- PER ACRE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MULTI PLE CULTIVATION WAS NOT EXCESSIVE OR ABNORMAL. ACCORDING TO HIM, F OR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE AMOUNT OF INCOME WAS ONLY ` 37,777/- PER ACRE AND THE HOLDING OF AREA UNDER CULTIVATION WAS VERY SAME. JUST BECAUSE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BILLS FOR SA LE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, AN ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS MADE. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT REASON FOR LEVYING PENALTY. AS PER THE LD. A.R., THE LEASE OF LAND, A S PER THE LEASE DEED, WAS CORRECT AND THE INCOME SHOWN WAS CORRECT BUT TH E A.O. HAD NOT ACCEPTED A PART OF INCOME FOR VERY MANY REASONS, BU T NONE OF WHICH WOULD SHOW ANY INACCURATE FILING OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 11 10. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 RELIED ON BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS ON DIFFERENT FACTUAL SITUATION. ACCORDING TO HIM, DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, ASSESSEE HAD CARDAMOM CULTIVATION FROM LEASED LANDS AND SHE COULD PRODUCE VOUCHERS FOR SALE OF SUCH CARDAMOM AND IT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THIS REAS ON, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INC OME. AS PER THE LEARNED D.R., CARDAMOM SALES EFFECTED BY THE ASSESS EE WERE SUPPORTED BY PURCHASE VOUCHERS FROM PERSONS WHO WER E HAVING DETAILED ADDRESS. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE TRIBUNAL HA D GIVEN A POSITIVE FINDING WITH REGARD TO OWN LAND AS WELL. HENCE, LE ARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAD NO RELEVANCE. 11. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. IN THE FIRST PLACE, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT OF T HE LEARNED A.R. THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS TO BE RELIED ON, FOR GIVING A CONCLUSION THAT FOR THE IMP UGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PAR TICULARS WHATSOEVER. NO DOUBT, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30 TH MARCH, 2010, THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NOS. 299 & 300/MDS/2007 AND I.T.A. NOS. 403 & 402/MDS/2007, HA D HELD THAT I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 12 AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 39,500/- FROM ONE ACRE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER OWN LAND, COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EXCESSIVE OR ABNORMAL. BUT, WE FIND THAT FACTUAL SITUATION AS P REVAILING IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT I N SO FAR PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNED . ASSESSEE HAD IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR CLAIMED A SUM OF ` 6,76,580/- TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON GROUND NUT, PA DDY, COCONUT AND TURMERIC. AS AGAINST THIS, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE ALONG WITH HE R HUSBAND HAD APPEARED AND CHANGED THIS STAND AND CAME UP WITH A STORY OF REARING 15 COWS ALSO WITH AN ANNUAL INCOME OF ` 2,70,000/- FROM SALE OF MILK. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUMMARIZED THE VARIOUS CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AND THIS IS REPRODUCED AT PARA 3 ABOVE BY US. THIS STO OD AT LARGE VARIANCE WITH THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN. COUPLED WITH THIS, ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY E VIDENCE FOR THE SALE OF VARIOUS CROPS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RAISED B Y HER IN THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD. THOUGH INITIALLY ASSESSEE CLAI MED TO HAVE GROWN GROUND NUT, COCONUT AND TURMERIC, LATER SHE CLAIMED CULTIVATION OF TAPIOCA, BRINJAL, LADIES FINGER AND BANANA, IN ADDI TION TO ABOVE. HOWEVER, BOOKS FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATION PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED ONLY INCOME FROM GROUND NUT, PADDY, COCON UT AND TURMERIC, I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 13 AND THAT TOO, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHATS OEVER. THEREFORE, THERE WAS CLEAR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING HER AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THIS I S FURTHER SUBSTANTIATED BY THE CHANGING STANCE OF THE ASSESSE E DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, WHEN ASSESSEE BROUGHT IN A NE W SOURCE OF REARING COWS. FOR REARING OF 15 COWS, ASSESSEE CLA IMED HUGE INCOME OF ` 2,70,000/- WITHOUT ANY EXPENSES AND SALE OF MILK W AS NEVER SHOWN IN HER BOOKS. IN OUR OPINION, JUST BEC AUSE IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THE AVERAGE YI ELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS REASONABLE WOULD NOT COUNTENANCE THE FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUG NED ASSESSMENT YEAR. VIS--VIS THE CLAIM FOR LEASED LAND, ASSESSE E WAS PUT ON NOTICE THAT THE ALLEGED LESSOR SMT. RUKMANI HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE NEVER PARTED WITH THE POSSESSION. NEVERTHELESS, ASSESSEE REFRAINED FROM CROSS EXAMINING SMT. RUKMANI. IF WE LOOK AT EXPLAN ATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHERE AN ASSESSEE OFFER AN E XPLANATION WHICH HE OR SHE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND WHERE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY AN ASSESSEE IS FOUND BY THE A.O. TO BE F ALSE, THERE IS A DEEMED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. ASSESSEE IN THIS CAS E IS GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS AND WAS UNABLE TO SUBSTA NTIATE HER CLAIM OF INCOME BY ANY EVIDENCE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE A.O. HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I.T.A. NO. 2263/MDS/08 14 AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE LEVY OF PENALTY WAS THERE FORE JUSTIFIED AND THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS TAKEN A RIGHT VIEW WHEN HE CON FIRMED SUCH PENALTY. NOTHING NEW WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY LEAR NED A.R. FOR US TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAH AM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A), SALEM (4) CIT, SALEM (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE