PRAHLAD SINGH FAUJDAR, AGRA V. ITO WARD-1(2)(3), AGRA

ITA 253/AGR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8504 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 253/AGR/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SHRI PRAHLAD SINGH FAUJDAR, 27, BAGH FARZANA, AGRA. PAN: AADPF6239K (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(3), AGRA (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH.RAJENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. DR ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M.: THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, FEELIN G AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 30.01.2018 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT APPEAL HAS BEEN ERRED ON FAC TS AND IN LAW WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION FOR RS.7,82,000 MADE BY AO TREATING THE DEPOSITS WITH BANK A/C AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. NO ADDITION IS LIAB LE TO BE SUSTAINED. SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION, THE LEARNED C IT APPEAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION AND FACTS FORWARDED BEFOR E HIM. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND EXPLANATION OFFERED BEF ORE HIM, NO ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED ADDITION SUSTAINED AT RS.7,82,000 I S LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3. THAT APPEAL ORDER DATED 30.01.18 IS BAD IN LAW. DATE OF HEARING 01.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02 .07.2018 ITA NO. 253/AGR/2018 2 2. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD M ADE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,82,200/- ON THE BASIS OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON THE LAND OF HIS FAMILY M EMBERS AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OWNING THE LAND WHICH WAS UTILIZ ED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATION. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SURENDRA PRATAP RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN I T WAS AGREED THAT HE HAS 30 BIGHAS OF LAND WHICH WAS GIVEN ON LEASE BASIS TO TH E ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS OF LAND WAS NOT PRODUCED BY HIM ON THE DATE OF RECORDING HIS STATEMENT, WHICH HE HAD PROMISED TO PRODUCE ON THE SUBSEQUENT DATE AS AND WHEN CALLED UPON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CON VINCED EITHER BY THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SURENDRA PRATAP OR WITH OTHER EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, MADE ADDITION OF RS.7,82,200/-. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INCOME, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BA NK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION T O THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS FILED BEFORE US AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI SURENDER PRAT AP WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE PERIOD 2012-13 AND THE RE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OR EVIDENCE TO P ROVE THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. HE HAD RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF SMT. PREM SUNDARI VS. CIT, WHEREIN THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT IN LAST PARA HAS RECORDED AS UNDER : ITA NO. 253/AGR/2018 3 IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE DOCU MENTS I.E., THE COURT DECREE PERTAINING TO THE HALF SHARE OF THE ALLAHABAD PROPE RTY BUT REGARDING LUCKNOW PROPERTY, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED. NOTHING WAS PR ODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BEFORE THIS HONBLE HIGH COURT. MOREOVER , IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTS, ALV IS TO BE ESTIMATED AND THE SAME IS THE QUESTION OF FACTS. NO QUESTION OF LAW EMERGES FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WHEN IT IS SO, THE N WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE S AME IS HEREBY SUSTAINED ALONG WITH THE REASONS MENTIONED THEREIN. NO SUBSTA NTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS EMERGING FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBU NAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ANSWER TO THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION IS EITHER NOT REQUIRED OR IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE ADDITION U/S. 68, THREE CARDINAL PRIN CIPLES ARE REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, NAMELY, THE IDENTITY A ND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED SHRI SURENDRA PRATAP WHO ACKNOWLEDGED HAVI NG OWNED 30 BIGHAS OF LAND AND FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE LAND WAS GIVEN ON BATAI TO THE ASSESSEE. THE STATEMENT WAS DULY RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE STAT EMENT RECORDED BY HIM AND THEREFORE, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO PROVE/CONTRO VERT THAT SHRI SURENDRA PRATAP WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE SAID LAND OR THE LAND WAS NOT LEASED OUT ON BATAI BASIS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, INITIAL ONUS IS BEING DI SCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WE ARE CONVINCED WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION A ND ARE SATISFIED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. IN PRESENCE OF THESE FACTS, THE ONUS WAS SHIFTED FROM THE ASSES SEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BRING ON RECORD AN Y EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTHING ADVERSE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD CONTRADICTING THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SHRI SURENDRA PRATAP AND THEREFORE, IT SUCCEEDS THE TEST OF ADMISSIBILITY AND WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ESTABLISHED ITA NO. 253/AGR/2018 4 THE CASE THAT THE INCOME WAS GENERATED ON ACCOUNT O F THE WORK DONE BY HIM ON AGRICULTURAL LAND ON BATAI. 6. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2 ND JULY, 2019 *AKS* COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR