Zeba Urfi, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-7(4), New Delhi

ITA 271/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7467 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.271/Del/2020 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ms. ZEBA URFI 16TF, Community Centre, East of kailash, New Delhi PIN : 110065 Vs. ITO, Ward-7(4) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 12.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 14 th .07.2022 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 24.09.2019 in appeal no. 195/16-17 in assessment year 2013-14 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority in short ‘Ld. F.A.A.’) in regard to the appeal before it arising out of assessment order dated 22/03/2016 u/s 143(3) ITA No. 271/Del/2020 Ms. Zeba Urfi 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer ‘AO’). 2. None has appeared for the assessee as the case was called for hearing and notices have been received back with the report of “left” on the acknowledgement. No more notice is justified as it appears assessee is not interested to prosecute the appeal. Arguments of Ld. DR were heard. 3. The facts in brief are during the year under consideration assessee had claimed to earn Agricultural income amounting to Rs. 28,50,000/- and when the case was selected for scrutiny, the AO was not satisfied with the details of agricultural income. The Ld. Tax Authorities below had observed that the land claimed to be owned by the assessee was converted into non- agricultural land after change of land user (CLU) permission from the competent revenue authority. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that assessee has not brought any evidence on record of sale of agriculture produce, bills for purchase of seeds, fertilizers etc. accordingly income or Rs. 28,50,000/- treating it as income from undisclosed source by the Ld. AO was confirmed. 4. After perusal of the matter on record and the submissions of ld. DR who endorsed the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities the Bench is of considered opinion that Ld. AO in his assessment order dated 22.03.2016 had reproduced the relevant orders of the revenue authorities allowing conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use. The same indicate that based upon the inquiry of the spot that land is not being cultivated, the CLU was allowed. Further, the extent of land holding referred by Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) required establishment at least prima facie that the assessee herself or through any other person was engaged in ITA No. 271/Del/2020 Ms. Zeba Urfi 3 the agricultural activity. However no evidence is on record in that context. Thus, there is no error in the findings of ld. CIT(A) requiring interference. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex parte. Order pronounced in the open court on 14 th July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R.KUMAR) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-14 th .07.2022 *Binita, SR.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI