Ravinder Singh, Rohtak V. ITO, Rohtak

ITA 2950/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3806 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANITA DEVI NAREON
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV CHAWLA
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL, JM AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM ITA NO.2950/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, PROP. D.P.INDUSTRIES, 59/22, KISHAN PURA, ROHTAK 124 001. PAN NO.APFPS6234J. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ROHTAK. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJEEV CHAWLA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SMT.BANITA DEVI NAREON, SR.DR. ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA, AM : THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD CIT(A),ROHTAK DATED 27.04.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IN TH E MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED OFFICER IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE BAD IN LAW, UNLAWFUL, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE BASED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT P ROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT S HIS CASE AS PER LAW. THE LEARNED CIT(A), HAS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR BY NO T CONSIDERING ADDITION OF CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,48,400/- BY WAY OF AGRICULTURE INCOME AND CONSIDERED IT TO BE AFTER THOUGHT EVEN AFTER PRODUCING THE J FORMS PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION OF CAPITAL A ND SHOWING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF HAVING THE AGRICULTURAL LAN D. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR BY MAK ING AN ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- AS EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS WHEREAS THE COMPLETE VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF ALL THE EXPENSES WERE PRODUCED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND MOREOVER THIS ADDITION IS MADE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY ITEM OF EXPENDITURE W HICH HAS NOT ITA-2950/DEL/2009 2 BEEN VOUCHED, HE HAS SIMPLY PASSED SWEEPING JUDGMEN T /THAT COMPLETE AND PROPERLY MAINTAINED VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED GRAVE ERROR B Y ADDING RS.31,753/- UNDER THE HAD SUNDRY CREDITORS. IN FAC T THERE WERE TWO PARTIES OF THE SAME NAME EXIST IN THE INDUSTRIAL AR EAS OF ROHTAK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING CONFIRMATION MADE CO NFIRMATION WITH THE WRONG PARTY WHEREAS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE FACT HAS BEEN APPRISED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EVEN A COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTY I.E. UNIVERSAL ENTERPRI SES WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THAT THE PETITIONER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO URGE SUCH OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. THE APPELLANT PRAYED THAT /THE DEMAND TO CREATE SHA LL BE DEBITED, QUASHED, DROPPED AS REQUESTED AND IT IS FURTHER PRA YED THAT TILL THE CONCLUSION OF OUTCOME OF THIS APPEAL THE AFORESAID DEMAND SHALL BE STAYED. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. IN THE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 144, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,48,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL INTRODUCTION WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO BE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE P RODUCED SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAVING B EEN EARNED AND THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIM. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ASSESS EE IS OWNER OF FIVE ACRE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VILLAGE BAINSI, BUT HAS NOT SH OWN ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RELEVANT COLUMN 24 OF FORM SARAL IN THE DOCUMEN TS ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF TH E AO. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOU ND THAT DOCUMENT WITH REGARD TO OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND INCOME GENERATED OUT OF IT WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHO SENT ALL HIS DOCUM ENTS TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS AND THE REMAND REPORT. MERELY BECAUSE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN COLUMN 24 OF FORM SARAL OF R ETURN OF INCOME, HE STATED THAT SHOWING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS AN AFTER THOUGHT AND THE CLAIM WAS DECLINED. SINCE THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND IS NOT DECLINED IN VIEW OF THE COPY OF FARD FILED ITA-2950/DEL/2009 3 BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO FILED FORM J ISSUED BY THE KACHA ARHATIYA OF MANDI TO WHOM AGRICULTURAL PRODUC E WAS SOLD AMOUNTING TO RS.2,81,005/- CLAIM OF ASSESSEE HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE DECLINED OUTRIGHTLY. EVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE EVIDENCE SO FILED, WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ACTION OF LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR COMPLETE DENIAL OF AGRICULTURAL INC OME HAVING BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR DETERMINING THE CORRECT QUANTUM OF I NCOMER WITH REFERENCE TO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES, WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING AFRESH AFTE R GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. OUT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED, THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- FOR WANT OF VOUCHERS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVIN G BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. SIMILARLY, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.31,753/- WAS MADE FOR WANT OF CONFIRMATION. THERE WAS SOME CONF USION WITH REGARD TO NAME OF THE PARTIES EXISTING IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS OBTAINED CONFIRMATION FROM THE WRONG PARTY. COPY OF CONFIRM ATION FROM CORRECT PARTY M/S UNIVERSAL ENTERPRISES WAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, GROUND WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE S OF RS.30,000/- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.31,7 53/- IS ALSO RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AND ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PROD UCE RELEVANT VOUCHERS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES HAVING BEEN INCU RRED AND TO FILE CONFIRMATION OF CREDITORS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. AO IS TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JUNE, 2010. SD/- SD/- (I.P.BANSAL) (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11.06.2010. VK. ITA-2950/DEL/2009 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR