Shri Sakabhai Bechardas Patel, Gandhinagar V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

ITA 2427/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9703 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALA PHILIPS
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.2427/AHD/2015 /BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-2008 SAKARBHAI BECHARDAS PATEL PATEL VAS, MANSA HIGHWAY CHARADA, DIST. GANDHINAGAR OPP: RAMJI MANDIR, PALDI-RATHOD POST BILODRA, TAL: MANSA DIST. GANDHINAGAR. PAN: ARGPP 8944 J VS ITO, WARD-4 GANDHINAGAR. %& / (APPELLANT) '( %& / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI LALA PHILIPS, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 18/11/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/02/2016 )*/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD.COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), GANDHINAGAR D ATED 22.05.2015 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,80,000/- WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO IN AN ITA NO.2427/AHD/2015 2 ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7.11.2014 PASSED UNDER SECTI ON 144 R.W.S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE LD.AO HAS GOT IN FORMATION THROUGH ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT WING EXHIBITING THE FACT THAT A SUM OF RS.11,38,000/- WERE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH CHARADA NAGRIK BANK DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSTT. YEAR 2007-08. THE LD.AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT AND INVITED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NO TICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED FORM NO.6/A AND 7/12. HE CONTENDED THAT HE WAS WORKING WITH STATE GOVERNMENT AS SUPERVISOR (AGRICULTURE). HE R ETIRED ON 1.1.1994 FROM HIS JOB AFTER 35 YEARS OF SERVICE. HE OWNED 9.2 BIGHAS OF LAND. HE HAS 1/3 RD SHARE IN A TUBEWELL. THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN DEPOSIT ED FROM AGRICULTURE PRODUCE, SALE OF WATER FROM TUBEWELL AND PENSION. THE LD.AO OBSERVED THAT PENSION WAS DEPOSITED IN A DIFFERENT ACCOUNT. HE F URTHER OBSERVED THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE RAN GES BETWEEN RS.30,000/- TO RS.2,50,000/-. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY SUBSTANTIAL SOURCE OF REGULAR AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE AO HAS HARBOURED A BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE EARNED INCOME OF RS.2,50,000/- FROM AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY. AFTER GIVING CREDIT OF THIS MUCH AMOUNT, HE MADE ADDITION OF REMAINING AMOUNTS I.E. RS.8,80,000/- UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, NO ONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. PAPER BOOK HAS BEEN FILED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.DR, WE HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE RECORD AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE ITA NO.2427/AHD/2015 3 RECORD WOULD INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS 78 YEAR S OF AGE. HE WAS LIVING WITH HIS WIFE. HIS ONE OF THE SONS IS RUNNING A PR OPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AT MUMBAI WHICH IS ENGAGED IN INDUSTRIAL JOB WORK. OT HER SON IS ALSO HAVING PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AT AHMEDABAD WHICH IS ENGAGE D IN PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF SEEDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COMPLETE DETAILS OF HIS BANK ACCOUNTS STARTED FROM 20 TH JULY, 1998 UTO 31 ST MARCH, 2006. HE HAS DISCLOSED HIS LAND HOLDING AND INCOME FROM SALE OF WATER FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE. CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS ACCUMULATED CASH OUT OF AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES IN THE PAST. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT OVER A PERIOD OF EIGHT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDIT OF RS.4,95,000/- AND DEBIT RS.4,30,000/- . HE HAS MADE WITHDRAWAL OF MAJOR AMOUNTS ALSO IN THE PAST. LOOKING TO THES E FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT FOR A RETIRED PERSON OF 78 YEARS OF AGE TO MAINTAIN THE RECORD EXHIBITING THE EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURE EXPEN DITURE AND INCOME. HE HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY SUBSTANTIAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY HIM EVEN IN THIS ACCOUNT WAS OF RS.3,0 0,000/- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED ON 18.12.2006. THE AO COULD NOT LAY HIS HAND ON ANY MATERIAL WHICH SUGGESTS THE INVOLVEMENT OF ASSESSEE IN OTHER TRADE ACTIVITIES. IN OUR OPINION, THE AO OUGHT NOT TO HAVE MADE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND HE SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNTS IN THIS ACCOUNT, HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED FROM SALE PROC EEDS OF WATER FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE AND FROM AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES . IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT A RETIRED PERSON ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE ACTIVI TY WOULD MAINTAIN RECORD OF SALE OF WATER FROM THE TUBEWELL FOR AGRICULTURE ACT IVITIES. SUCH WATER IS BEING SOLD ON HOURLY BASIS FOR IRRIGATION PURPOSE. NO ON E IN THE VILLAGE USED TO MAINTAIN THE RECORD SHOWING TIME, WHEN WATER WAS CO NNECTED TO PARTICULAR FIELD, AND WHO HAS PAID HOW MUCH MONEY. ALL THESE STEPS IN DAY-TO-DAY LIFE ARE BEING TAKEN UNDER ORAL INSTRUCTIONS. THE AO HA S REJECTED THE EXPLANATION SIMPLY FOR REASONS THAT HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY EVIDE NCE. NOW, IT IS QUITE DIFFICULT IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE ASSESSEE TO BRIN G DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE ON ITA NO.2427/AHD/2015 4 SUCH AN ISSUE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND D ELETE THE ADDITION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST FEBRUARY AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( MANISH BORAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER