S Vijayalakshmi, Kurnool, Kurnool V. DCIT -1, Kurnool, Kurnool

ITA 233/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91686 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V RAJITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: G VENKATESWARLU
• Section: 143(3); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 233/HYD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 S . VIJAYALAKSHMI, KURNOOL [PAN: ADNPV7677A] VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KURNOOL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI G. VENKATESWARLU, AR FOR REVENUE : MISS V. RAJITHA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 18 - 0 5 - 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 - 05 - 2015 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M. : THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KURNOOL, DATED 28-01-2015 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND(S): I.T.A. NO. 233/HYD/2015 S. VIJAYALAKSHMI :- 2 -: ' THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) ON ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 2,50,000/-. ' 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM DAIRY AND AGRICULTURE. FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2007-08 FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-03-200 8 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS. 4,42,000/- APART FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 5,00,000/- FOR RATE PURPOSE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ACT]. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1). SU BSEQUENTLY, A NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED ON 01-12-2009. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 31-03-2008 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE I SSUED U/S. 148. 3. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 BY THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KURNOOL VI DE ORDER DT. 31-12- 2010 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 49,57,351/-WHILE DO ING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) MADE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD 'LONG TER M CAPITAL GAINS' OF RS. 42,14,381/- AND ALSO MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 3,00,000/- TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS NOT GENUINE. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE APPEAL WAS F ILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE SAME. ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE T HIS HON'BLE ITAT, HYDERABAD IN ITA NO. 1117/HYD/2013 VIDE ORDER DT. 1 6-01-2015, RESTORED THE ISSUE OF ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPI TAL GAINS' TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AND ON THE ISSUE OF AGRIC ULTURE INCOME, THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL RESTRICTED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME TO RS. 2.5 LAKHS BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 'ASSESSEE WAS ONLY OFFERING INCOMES OF RS. 60,000 /-, RS. 78,200/- AND RS. 1,75,700/- IN THE EARLIER THREE YEARS ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND HOLDIN G HAS NOT CHANGED IN THE YEARS, THE INCOME HAS SUDDENLY JUMPED FROM RS. 1.75 LAKHS TO RS. 5 LAKHS IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY). CONS IDERING THE I.T.A. NO. 233/HYD/2015 S. VIJAYALAKSHMI :- 3 -: SUBMISSIONS FOR ASSESSEE AND PAST RECORD, WE ARE O F THE OPINION THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME CAN BE DETERMINED AT RS. 2,50, 000/-. CONSEQUENTLY, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE AMOU NT TO RS. 2,50,000/- ONLY'. 4. WHILE MATTER STOOD THUS, THE LD. AO VIDE ORDER D T. 21-03-2013 LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS. 12,35,744/- U/S. 271(1)(C) ON THE ADDITIONS OF BOTH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND DISALLOWANCE OF AG RICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 3 LAKHS. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE CIT(A), T HE PENALTY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS DELE TED AND WHEREAS THE PENALTY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE AGRICULTURE INCOME WAS SUSTAINED VIDE ORDER DT. 28-01-2015. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, THE APPEL LANT HAD COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. IT WAS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN THE CASE OF ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURE INCOME AND NO DETAILS FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE FOUND TO BE FALSE OR INAC CURATE. HENCE, THE PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ON THE OTHER HAND, TH E LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDER S OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE NOTE THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL CON FIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME ONLY ON ESTIMATE B ASIS AND NEITHER IS THE CASE OF AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED CERTAIN DETAILS, WHICH ARE FOUND TO BE FALSE, CONSEQUENT TO WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH THE INFORMA TION AS REQUIRED BY THE AO IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO SUGGES T ANY INFLATION OF AGRICULTURE INCOME BY THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME BY THE AO ONLY ON ESTIMATE BA SIS. EVEN THIS I.T.A. NO. 233/HYD/2015 S. VIJAYALAKSHMI :- 4 -: HON'BLE TRIBUNAL RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 2.5 LAKHS ONLY ON ESTIMATE BASIS. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THA T IN THE CASE OF ADDITION MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) C ANNOT BE LEVIED. HENCE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22 ND MAY, 2015 SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 22 ND MAY, 2015 TNMM COPY TO : 1. S. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. K.V. SUBBA REDDY, FLAT NO . 203, ALANKAR PLAZA, KURNOOL-518 001. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KURNOOL 3. CIT(APPEALS), KURNOOL 4. CIT, KURNOOL 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD