Ramavtar, Rohtak V. ITO WARD - 05, Rohtak

ITA 2305/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9231 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2305/DEL/2019 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-I, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA NO. 2305/DEL/2019 A.Y. : 2014-15 RAMAVTAR, H.NO. 402, VPO BHAINI MATTO, TEHSIL MEHAM, ROHTAK HARYANA 124001 (PAN: AIBPR6336D) VS. ITO, WARD-05 ROHTAK HARYANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.02.2019 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ROHTAK IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. ASSESSEE BY SH. NAVEEN KR. GOYAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY SH. PRAKASH DUBEY, SR. DR. ITA NO.2305/DEL/2019 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 2,03,620/- ON 22.7.2014 UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAIN FROM BUSINESS OR P ROFESSION ALONGWITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 52,36,200/-. TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY UNDE R CASS AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'), 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 21.09.2015 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSEQUEN T ON THE TRANSFER OF CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED REQUISITE NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPO NSE TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED NECESSARY DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCES, BUT FAILED TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF TOTAL SA LE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SOLD AND ALSO FAILED TO PR ODUCE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVIT IES. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED ABOUT RS. 32,36,200/- FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME INSTEAD O F RS. 52,36,200/- WHICH WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED, DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED FORM -J IN SUPPORT OF HAVING PRODUCED AND SOLD THE AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE ONLY FOR RS. 15,36,747/- IN ORDER TO WORK OUT THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, EXPENDITURE IN CURRED TO ITA NO.2305/DEL/2019 3 EARN SUCH INCOME IS TO BE REDUCED AND ASSESSING OFF ICER ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT O F EXPENSES OF 40% OF PRODUCTION AND HE WORKED OUT AT RS. 6,14,69 8/- @ 40% OF RS. 15,36,747/- AND THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 9,22,048/- AND DIFFERE NCE OF RS. 43,14,152/- (5236200-922048) AND ASSESSING OFFI CER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 43,14,152/- BY ASSESSING T HE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 45,17,772/- U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 15/28.12.2016. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.2.2019 HAS PART LY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE IMPU GNED ORDER DATED 28.2.2019, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS AGRICULTURAL LAND OF ABOUT 45 ACRES SITUATED AT VILLAGE BHENI SURJAN AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN LAND ON LEASE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES FROM SH. BA LRAJ, BIJENDER AND BALWAN, BUT NO AGREEMENT OF LAND OF LE ASE HAS ITA NO.2305/DEL/2019 4 BEEN MADE OR REGISTERED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND TH E CONCERNED PARTIES. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE GIRDWARI AS EVIDENC E OF CULTIVATION OF LAND SHOWING THE OWNERSHIP LAND. ASS ESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED FORM J IN SUPPORT OF HIS PRODUCE AND SOLD AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BELI EVED THE SAME AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 43,14,152/- ONLY GI VING THE RELIEF OF RS. 9,22,048/-. SIMILARLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HA S ALSO GIVEN A VERY MINOR RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDIN G THAT THE GROSS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS IN THIS YEAR WAS ONLY R S. 29,25,000/- AND NOT RS. 52,36,200/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS GIVEN NO EXPLANATION FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 23,11,200/- THUS, WOULD BE HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH IS TAX ABLE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT LD. CIT(A)S FI NDING IS NOT BASED ON THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND AS PER THE P REVIOUS RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE REQUESTED THAT THE RE TURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BE ACCEPTED BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITION IN DISPUTE MAY BE DELETED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE ITA NO.2305/DEL/2019 5 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE AND SIMILARLY, LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT RELIEF BY CORRECTING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 52,36,200/- AS RS. 29,25,000/-, BECAUSE TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES ALONGWITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE G ROSS RECEIPT IN THE YEAR IN DISPUTE IS RS. 29,25,000/- AND NOT RS. 54,36,200/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY C ORRECTED THE MISTAKE, BUT I AM OF THE VIEW THAT KEEPING IN VIEW O F THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE STATEMENT O F THE SARPANCH OF THE VILLAGE ALONGWITH CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY HIM I.E. SARPANCH AND IN VIEW OF THE HUGE OWNERSHIP OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL T HE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. ITA NO.2305/DEL/2019 6 CIT(A) MADE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE O NLY ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND DISALLOWED THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE WHICH IS ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCES OF THE REVEN UE AUTHORITIES. HENCE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDI TION IN DISPUTE HAS WRONGLY BEEN MADE FOR THIS YEAR BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE SAME IS NOT S USTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND IS HEREBY DELETED IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.01.2021. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI ITA NO.2305/DEL/2019 7