Shri Harinath Mahendrabhai Jha, Anand V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

ITA 2458/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0482 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 2457 & 2458/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 & 2004-05 SHRI HARINATH MAHENDRABHAI JHA DHANWANTKAR, AROGYADHAM, AYURVED SANKUL, AMBICA SHAUK, B/H NEW BUS STAND, ANAND-01 PAN : AACDP 8390 D VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, ANAND / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MS. ARTI N. SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 05/10/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/10/2016 / O R D E R THESE ARE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS CONTESTING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HOLDING THE INCOME TO BE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.4,15,000/- FOR AY 2003-04 AND RS.4, 90,000/- FOR AY 2004- 05. 2. BRIEF FACTS ARE THE ASSESSEE IS AN AYURVEDIC D OCTOR AND CLAIMED THE ABOVE AMOUNTS AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE T O CULTIVATION OF AYURVEDIC HERBS WHITE MUSLI. ACCORDING TO THE AO , THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS BEHALF; THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT IN TH E ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS THESE ADDITIONS WERE MADE AND THE ADDITIONS REACHED UPTO THE STAGE OF ITAT, WHICH BY ITS ORDER DATED 20.05.2011 SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE AND ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THE MATTER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS R EQUESTING FOR ADMISSION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THOSE EVIDENCES HA VE A DIRECT BEARING ON THE SMC-ITA NOS. 2457 & 2458/AHD/2013 SHRI HARINATH MAHENDRABHAI JHA VS. ITO AY : 2003-04 & 2004-05 2 ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THER EFORE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO ADMIT BUT TO BE VERIFIED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. DUE TO THIS REASON, WE HEREBY RESTORE THIS GROUND BACK TO THE STAGE OF FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO RE- DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCES NOW PLACED ON RECORD AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EVIDENCES AS PER LAW. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THIS GROUND IS HEREBY ALLOWED BUT FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES 4. IN THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS, LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ADMITTED BY ITAT WHERE THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE, MATERIAL AND REMAND REPORT ON RECORD, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO BE CULTIVATIN G IN FOLLOWING LANDS:- I) SURVEY NO.425 IN THE NAME OF SHRI SHASHINATH M. JHA (BROTHER) 15.18 GUNTHA II) SURVEY NO.428 IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE WI TH SHRI SHASHINATH M. JHA 35.41 GUNTHA THE ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS SHOWN TO BE REC EIVED IN CASH AND IT WAS STATED THAT HIS BROTHER SHRI SHASHINATH M. J HA WAS LOOKING AFTER THE CULTIVATION OF THE LAND. SHRI SHASHINATH M. JHA WA S SUMMENED U/S 131 OF THE ACT AND HE CATEGORICALLY DENIED HAVING CARRIED OUT ANY CULTIVATION ACTIVITY WITH HIS BROTHER AND FURTHER STATED THAT H E HAS NOT REMITTED ANY MONEY AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THERE WERE FAMILY DISPUTES SINCE 1995. SINCE HE WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH HIS BROTHER, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY CULTIVATION, SELLING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND RE MITTING THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHE D ANY OTHER CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHICH COULD BE CORROBORATED OR CROSS-VERIF IED. THE AO MADE ENQUIRIES THROUGH INSPECTOR WHO REPORTED THAT NO AG RICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THESE PIE CES OF LAND. SHRI SHASHINATH M. JHA WAS ALSO AN INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE A ND NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN BY HIM IN HIS RETURN WHICH CORROBO RATED HIS STATEMENT THAT HE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURAL OPERATION A S CLAIMED BY HIS BROTHER, SMC-ITA NOS. 2457 & 2458/AHD/2013 SHRI HARINATH MAHENDRABHAI JHA VS. ITO AY : 2003-04 & 2004-05 3 I.E., ASSESSEE SHRI HARINATH M. JHA. OTHER AFFIDAV ITS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE HELD TO BE IRRELEVANT INASMUCH AS THE CULTIVAT OR OF THE LAND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DENIED HAVING CARRIED OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY, SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OR REMITTED ANY AMOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. APROPOS THE AFFIDAVIT OF ONE SHRI MANOJBHAI K. S ANGHAVI, THE ALLEGED PURCHASER OF AYURVEDIC HERBS FROM THE ASSESSEES BR OTHER, HE STATED THAT THE SEEDS WERE SUPPLIED BY HIM WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SALE VALUE WILL BE PAID IN CASH. SINCE THE ASSESSEES BROTHER SHRI SH ASHINATH M. JHA HAD FLATLY DENIED ABOUT ANY CULTIVATION, SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, RECEIVING OF SALE PROCEEDS OR ANY TRANSACTION WITH SHRI MANOJBHAI OR WITH ASSESSEE, THIS AFFIDAVIT WAS HELD TO BE UNRELIABLE. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE STATEMENT OF HIS OWN BROTHER WHO WAS CLAIMED TO BE ASSESSEES OWN WITNESS AS DOE R OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND RECIPIENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN VIEW THEREOF, LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. AO BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATION :- 7. ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BOOKS O F ACCOUNT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT RELIABLE AND FULL OF CONTR ADICTIONS AS ALREADY DISCUSSED ABOVE. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT H AS NOT BEEN CONSISTENT AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS THAT FIRSTLY, IT WAS CLAI MED BY HIM THAT THE CASH WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS BROTHER, THEN IT WAS CLAIMED THAT SEVERAL PERSONS ARE CARRYING OUT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY FROM WHOM TH E CASH HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND FINALLY IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE CASH WAS RECEIV ED FROM THE PERSON NAMED SHRI MANOJBHAI K SANGHAVI WHO COULD NOT BE PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION AND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT GIVE HIS CORRECT ADDRESS. BESIDES, IN THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED IN THE FORM OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF HIS BROTHER MR.SHASHINATH M JHA ALSO, THIS PERSON DID NOT CONFIRM PAYMENT OF ANY CA SH TO THE APPELLANT OUT OF ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES, IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THIS CASH RECEIP TS WERE IN THE FORM OF SMC-ITA NOS. 2457 & 2458/AHD/2013 SHRI HARINATH MAHENDRABHAI JHA VS. ITO AY : 2003-04 & 2004-05 4 AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS HAND. HERE, IT MAY BE PO INTED OUT THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN THE FINDING IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT EVEN THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS IN THE FORM OF CONSULTATION FEE AMOUNTING TO RS.3,6 0,675/- DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME IS BY WAY OF CASH RECEIPTS WITHOUT DEPOSITING OR ROUTING THROUGH ANY BANK ACCOUNT THOU GH, THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING BANK ACCOUNT. HENCE, ON THE BASIS OF ALL THE SE DISCUSSIONS, THE ACTION OF THE AO OF TAXING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN B Y THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME IS UPHELD AN D THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT LD. C IT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION ON PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION, IGNORING TH E AFFIDAVITS FILED BY SHRI MANOJ K. SANGHAVI TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SEED S WERE PROVIDED BY HIM, THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS PURCHASED BY HIM AND CASH WAS GIVEN. 8. THE LD. SR. DR, MS. SONIA KUMAR, ON THE OTHER HA ND, VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN ELABORATED FINDI NG OF FACTS BASED ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. THE ASSESSEES STORY LACKS ANY CREDENCE INASMUCH AS IT IS FULL OF GAPING HOLES , INCONSISTENCIES, SELF- CONTRADICTION AND FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION. HIS BROT HER DEPOSED ON OATH THAT THERE WERE FAMILY DISPUTES AND HE HAD NO RELATION, CONNECTION OR DEALING WITH THE ASSESSEE OR WITH HIS ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. HIS BROTHERS RETURN OF INCOME ALSO CORROBORATED HIS STATEMENT IN ASMUCH AS NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN BY HIM. IT IS CONTEN DED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCOCTED A STORY WHICH IS FOUND TO BE GROSSLY UNSU BSTANTIATED AND WITHOUT ANY CREDENCE. THERE, THE ADDITIONS SHOULD BE CONFIR MED. 9. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. SR. DR. THE ASSESSEES OWN EVIDENCE HAS TURNED OUT TO BE AGAINST HIM. HIS BROT HER SHRI SHASHINATH M. JHA, WHO WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE THE CULT IVATOR OF LAND, SELLER OF THE PRODUCT AND REMITTER OF THE SALE PROCEEDS, HAS FLATLY DENIED BY STATEMENT SMC-ITA NOS. 2457 & 2458/AHD/2013 SHRI HARINATH MAHENDRABHAI JHA VS. ITO AY : 2003-04 & 2004-05 5 ON OATH. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED HIS STA TEMENT. IN VIEW THEREOF, I SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHI CH IS BASED ON PROPER FINDING OF FACTS AND BASED ON RELEVANT MATERIAL. TH EREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ADDITIONS ARE UPH ELD AND THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 6 TH OCTOBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 06/10/2016 *BIJU T. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD