Dr. Ravinder Singh Tomar, Hardoi V. ` Income Tax Officer, Hardoi

ITA 294/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3227 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BISWAS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 294 /LKW/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 DR. RAVINDER SINGH TOMAR, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FRACTURE CLINIC, HARDOI. LUCKNOW ROAD, HARDOI. PAN:AAPPT1903N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. RANU BISWAS, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 30 /0 5 /201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/06/2013 ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) , INTER ALIA, ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 27,350/ - BY APPROVING THE ENHANCEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT BY ASSESSING OFFICER, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE AND VALID BASIS. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 2,77,600/ - , MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH REPRESENTS THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF THE HUF OF THE 2 ASSESSEE AND IN TREATING THE S AME AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AND ALSO ADDING ` 3,29,834/ - AS AGRICULTURE INCOME FOR TAX PURPOSES ALSO WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ` 52,234/ - . FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AGRICULTURE INCOME IN QUESTION DOES NOT EVEN BELONG TO THE ASS ESSEE. 3. THAT IN DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED IN QUESTION IS ALREADY WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND FURTHER THAT THIS IS NOT AFFORDED DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PLEAD ITS CASE A ND REQUISITE EVIDENCE, ADDUCED WAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED. 4. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS CRYPTIC AND NON SPEAKING, WHILE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVING TO RAISE ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY DESIRE TO RAISE DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL, AND MAY KINDLY BE PERMITTED BY THE BENCH. 2. APROPOS GROUND NO.1, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ADDITION OF ` 27,350/ - WAS MADE ON AD HOC BASIS BY ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 9,50,000/ - AS AGAINST ` 9,22,615/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE INCREASING FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE RECEIPTS OF ` 6,38,205/ - , ` 8,65,510/ - AND ` 9, 22,650/ - WAS SHOWN IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 2007, 2007 - 2008 AND 2008 - 2009 RESPECTIVELY. BUT THIS EXPLANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON AD HOC BASIS WITHOUT 3 ASSIGNING ANY REASON ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE INCOME COULD BE WORKED OUT AT ` 9,50,000/ - . 4. THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. AFTER CO NSIDER ING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WE FIND THAT SINCE NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AS TO ON WHAT BASIS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKED OUT AT ` 9,50,000/ - BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF ` 27,350/ - WAS MADE ONLY ON AD HOC BASIS WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT THEREIN AND DELETE THE SAME. 6. APROPOS GROUND NO. 2, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AT ` 2,77,600/ - WHICH WAS TREATED TO BE THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A FTER REJECTING THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS FAT HER HE INHERITED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HAS EARNED THIS MUCH OF INCOME OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE EUCALYPTUS TREE, WHEAT AND PADDY ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THIS INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AFTER OBSERVING THAT THE REVENUE RECORD DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE PLANTATION OF EUCALYPTUS TREES ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. 7. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT HE HAS INHERITED THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM HIS FATHER ON HIS DEATH AND AGRICULTURE INCOME FOR THE FIRST TIME WAS SHOWN IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THIS AGRICULTURE INCOME WAS EARNED ON SALE OF EUCALYPTUS TREES, WHEAT AND PADDY ETC. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT APPRECIATED BY THE CIT(A) AND HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT HE HAS INHERITED THIS AGRICULTURAL LA ND FROM HIS FATHER AND EARNED THIS INCOME FROM SALE OF EUCALYPTUS TREES, WHEAT AND PADDY. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT IN REVENUES RECORD , PLANTATION OF EUCALYPTUS TREES WAS NOT SHOWN. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE EUCALYPTUS TREES WERE CUT AND SOLD IN THE FORM OF BALLI, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE REVENUE RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THE SALE OF PADDY AND WHEAT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURE AND SURMISES AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 9. THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ASSESS EE DID NOT MAINTAIN PROPER ACCOUNTS WITH REGARD TO THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE SUSTAINED. 10. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT DISPUTED BY ANY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEY HAVE ALSO NOT RAISED DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF PADDY AND WHEAT. THE ISSUE WAS RAISED WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF EUCALYPTUS TREES. THE ASSESSEE HIM SELF HAS ACCEPTED THAT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE EUCALYPTUS TREES WERE CUT AND SOLD, THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE SHOWN IN THE REVENUE RECORD BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDI TION ON THE SOLE REASON THAT IN REVENUES RECORD THE PLANTATION OF EUC ALYPTUS TREES WAS NOT SHOWN. SINCE 5 THE LAND HOLDING HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOULD BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING. IN THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES NOBODY IS MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EARN ANY INCOME. GENERALLY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF LAND HOLDING. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LAND HOLDING BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISPUTED. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DISPUTED WITHOUT BRINGING ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE LAND HOLDING. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE O F LAND HOLDING OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/06/2013 ) SD/. SD/. ( PRAMOD KUMAR) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28/06/2013 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR