M/s. Ritco Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2384/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3700 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CO M

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2384/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 RITCO LEASING PVT. LTD. 31, TRANSPORT CENTRE, NEW ROHTAK ROAD, PUNJABI BAGH, DELHI VS. ITO WARD-21(3) NEW DELHI PAN : AAACR0986M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, J.M. : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 29.3.2017 OF CIT(A)-36, NEW DELHI PERTA INING TO 2012-13 ASSESSMENT YEAR. ON VARIOUS GROUND INCLUDING GROUND NO. 1 WHICH READ S AS UNDER: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS HAS ERRED IN LOW AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT ACCEPTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNE D BY THE COMPANY AND TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES SIMPLY ON THE GRO UND THAT THE AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY ACCEPTED THE SAME AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT YEAR. W HILE THE FACT IS THAT THIS HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE AR. 2. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE ASSESSME NT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES ON THE REASONING THAT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 17.3.2015 A GREED FOR TAXING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER SHEET HAS BEEN APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 24-08-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.10.2017 2 ITA NO.2384/DEL/2017 REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY THE CIT(A) AT P AGE 4 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: SH. PREM LAMBA CA THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY A TTENDED. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER AND NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR SALE ETC. ARE BEING ALLOWED AGAINST THIS INCOME. THE LTCG IS BEING WORKED OUT ON THE BA SIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CASE IS DISCUSSED IN PART. 3. PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE CO NFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CHALLENGED THIS CONCLUSION STATING THAT IT I S NOT NECESSARY TO OWN AGRICULTURAL LAND BUT HAVE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE LAND HAD BEEN LEA SED FROM ITS OWN DIRECTOR ON WHICH AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY HAD BEEN CALLED ON AND FURTHE R SOLD MR. PREM LAMBA, CA DENIED THAT HE HAD AGREED THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME BE TREA TED AN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. RELYING UPON LETTER DATED 10.12.2016 FILED BEFORE T HE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AR HAD STATED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPELLED HIM TO SIGN THE ORDER SHEET WHICH HE HAD NEVER AGREED TO. THIS SUBMISSION IS FOUND EX TRACTED AT PAGE 4 OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ORDER. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(A) VS. TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED DATED 20.6.2011 IN ITA NO. 530/2011 FOR 2004-05 ASSESSMENT YEAR. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED ON THE REASONING THAT HIS COUNSEL HAD AGR EED TO SIGN THE ORDER SHEET ITSELF. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER CONSIDERING THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES, THE LEARNED SR. DR WAS REQUIRED TO DEFEND THE DEPARTMENTAL DECISION. T HE LEARNED SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SIGNATURE OF THE COUNSEL IN THE ORDER-SHEET SUBSTAN TIATES THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN AGREED TO BY THE COUNSEL WHO HAD THE AUTHORITY AS A POWER OF ATTORNEY PRESUMABLY WAS EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR TO CONTEND THE ISSUE. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. I FIND IN THE FACE OF THE CONTINUED OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPELLED HIS COUNSEL TO SIGN THE ORDER SHEET IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES THE TAX AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED TO REFUSE TO LOOK AT THE CORRECT AND TRUE FACTS INSTEAD OF INSISTING TO STICK TO FACTS OBTAINED BY ALLEGED COMPULSION. IN THE PECU LIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES I DEEM IT 3 ITA NO.2384/DEL/2017 PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE FULL AND PROPER FACTS. THE DUTY OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES IS NOT ONLY TO COLLECT THE CORRECT AND DUE TAXES BUT ALSO ENSURE THAT IN T HE PROCESS NO INJUSTICE IS DONE. THE OCCASION TO PRESSURIZE AND COMPEL A COUNSEL TO CONT END A ISSUE IS NOT THE WAY JUST AND DUE TAXES OUGHT TO BE COLLECTED IN CASE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE HEAD HAD TO BE CHANGED THEN HE OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION PASSED A REA SONED AND SPEAKING ORDER FOR HIS CONCLUSION. THE OCCASION TO BASE HIS CONCLUSION ON THE CONCESSION OF A COUNSEL IS NOT THE WAY THE POWERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXERCISED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/ 10/2017) SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER N. MISHRA) DATED : 18.10.2017 SH/ BINITA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT NEW DELHI 4 ITA NO.2384/DEL/2017 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 24.08.2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 13.09.2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 18.10.2017 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.