SHRI VIBHUTI SINGH DEORA, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-2, JAIPUR

ITA 308/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8824 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 69C; 131

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 308/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 VIBHUTI SINGH DEORA, JAIPUR CUKE VS. ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ADHPD7082R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ROHAN SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MISS. CHANCHAL MEENA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02/01/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07/01/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR DATED 28.01.2019 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN THE FOLLOWING SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL:- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 3,20,167 U/S 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE A CTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAIN ST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 3,20,167 MADE BY THE LD. AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AND FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) WHICH ARE UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US READS AS UNDER: ITA NO. 308/JP/2019 VIBHUTI SINGH DEORA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD-5(2), JAI PUR 2 2.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS WELL AS APPLICABLE CASE L AWS RELIED UPON. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ACCORDING TO THE AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 1 1.365 HECTARES (72.37 BIGHAS) SITUATED AT MAUJA SARHADU, BALUPURA. THE ASSESSEE LET OUT HIS AGRICULTURE LAND TO TWO TENANTS, SHRI N AKLANG SINGH AND SHRI HIMMAT SINGH ON BATAIDARI BASIS. UNDER SUCH AR RANGEMENT BOTH THE TENANTS JOINTLY WERE ENTITLED TO 40% OF THE AGR ICULTURE PRODUCE AND IN TURN WERE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR INCURRING EXP ENSES OF THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE ON SUCH AGRICULTURE LAND. ASSES SEE, UNDER SUCH ARRANGEMENT, WAS ENTITLED TO 60% OF THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE AND HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY OF INCURRING ANY EXPENDITURE TOWARDS SUCH PRODUCE. IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSI TION, AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BEFORE ME THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS , WHICH WERE ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, DURING ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS:- COPY OF THE JAMABANDI AND GIRDAWARI REPORT OF THE A GRICULTURE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFFIDAVIT OF THE TENANTS, SHRI NAKLANG SINGH AND SH RI HIMMAT SINGH CERTIFICATE OF SARPANCH STATING THAT THE AGRICULTUR E LAND HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TENANTS ON BATAIDARI B ASIS. SALE VOUCHERS OF THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE, TO THE EX TENT OF HIS SHARE, SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. BANK STATEMENT IN WHICH THE AFOREMENTIONED SALE PRO CEEDS WERE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.3.1 THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO STATED TH AT, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF ITA NO. 308/JP/2019 VIBHUTI SINGH DEORA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD-5(2), JAI PUR 3 FLYING AND WAS DIRECTOR IN M/S MICROLIGHT AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ALSO RUN A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN IN THE NAME OF 'P ALACE ON WINGS', THROUGH WHICH HE GENERATED INCOME. 2.3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO ISSUED NOTICES TO THE TENANTS, SHRI NAKLANG SINGH AND SHRI HIMMAT SINGH, UNDER SECTION 131 AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS. HO WEVER, SHRI NAKLANG SINGH AND SHRI HIMMAT SINGH IN THEIR STATEM ENTS, BEFORE THE AO, COULD NOT SPECIFY NAME OF CROPS/VEGETABLES PRODUCED AND ALSO THE NAME OF CUSTOMERS TO WHOM AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE WAS SOLD BY THEM DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. FURTHER, AO WAS O F THE VIEW THAT NO FORMAL AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED BETWEEN THE ASSESSE E AND THE TENANTS AND ALSO THAT THE TENANTS DID NOT MAINTAIN RECORDS OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED TO EFFECTUATE THE AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCE. THEREAFTER, AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT CERTAIN EXPENSE S MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN CASH, APROPOS SUC H AGRICULTURE PRODUCE AND THUS ADDED RS. 7,47,056, UNDER SECTION 69C, BEING 35% OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.3.3 THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LUBTEC INDIA LTD (2009) 311 ITR 175 (DELHI) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHENEVER A DDITIONS ARE MADE UNDER SECTION 69C HEAVY BURDEN IS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THE REAL FLOW OF MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT CANNOT BE DISRE GARDED WITHOUT ANY COGENT BASIS, ID. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PARIKH & CO. (19 56) 30 ITR 181 (SC). ITA NO. 308/JP/2019 VIBHUTI SINGH DEORA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD-5(2), JAI PUR 4 IN THE STATEMENTS BOTH THE TENANTS ACCEPTED THE FAC T OF BEING INVOLVED IN AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES ON BATAIDARI BASIS, ON TH E AGRICULTURE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTUAL POSITION HAS ALS O BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE SARPANCH IN HIS CERTIFICATE. HOWEVER, THE TE NANTS WERE UNABLE TO SPECIFY THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THEIR AGRICUL TURE PRODUCE WHEN ASKED DURING RECORDING OF STATEMENTS. 2.3.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUS IVELY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TO WARDS EARNING SUCH AGRICULTURE INCOME. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE AT 35% BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEMS TO BE ON HIGHER SIDE, THUS THE SAME I S RESTRICTED TO 15% OF THE AGRICULTURE INCOME. AS A RESULT, ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 69C IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 3,20 ,167/-. ASSESSEE THUS GETS RELIEF OF RS. 4,26,889/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEA L IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. 4. THE LD CIT(A) HAS RETURNED A FINDING THAT IT CAN NOT BE CONCLUSIVELY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE INCURRED ANY EXPEN DITURE TOWARDS EARNING SUCH AGRICULTURE INCOME AND DISALLOWANCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REDUCED TO 15% FROM 35%. THE SAID FINDINGS REMAIN U NCONTROVERTED BEFORE US AND MORE SO, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS ALREADY BEEN REST RICTED TO 15% WHICH WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE NOT TO DISTURB IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISPOSED O FF IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DIRECTIONS. ITA NO. 308/JP/2019 VIBHUTI SINGH DEORA, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD-5(2), JAI PUR 5 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/01/2020. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 07/01/2020 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- VIBHUTI SINGH DEORA, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 308/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR