M/s Satnam Singh, Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 311/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9592 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAWANI SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (CAMP AT JALANDHAR) BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.311(ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S SATNAM SINGH S/O SH. JASWANT SINGH H.NO.2, VILL. BAHUDINPUR (KATHAR) ADAMUR DOABA, JALANDHAR. PAN:ABNPS7847K VS. ITO, WARD-IV(I), JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. J.S. BHASIN (ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. BHAWANI SHANKAR (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 23.06.2016 DATE OF PRONO UNCEMENT: 22.08.2016 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR DATED 12.05.2016 FOR ASST. YEAR: 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF GRIEVANCE OF ASSESSEE IS THE ACTION OF LEARNED C IT(A) BY WHICH HE HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8,65,149/- AS INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE TO BE FROM AGRICULTUR AL INCOME. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN A FIRM AND IS GETTING REMUNERATION AND INTEREST FROM THIS FIRM M/S HRBHAJAN SINGH SATNAM S INGH. THE CASE OF ITA NO.311 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEA R: 2011-12 2 THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE D EPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.29 LACS IN CASH, HOWEVER, L ATTER ON WAS CORRECTED TO BE RS.14,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIME D THE INCOME OF RS.RS.10,00,000/- FROM AGRICULTURAL FOR THE EXPLANA TION OF DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME OBSERVE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,34 ,851/- ONLY AND THEREFORE, THE EXCESS CLAIMED OF RS.8,65,149/- WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE THA T BESIDES HIS OWN AGRICULTURAL LAND, HE HAD CULTIVATED ABOUT 7 ACRES LAND OF HIS FATHER AND 14 ACRES LAND OF HIS MOTHERIN-LAW WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LEARN ED CIT(A), HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE ACTION OF ASSESS ING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AT THE FIRST INSTANCE ISSUED NOTICE FOR DEPOSIT OF 29 LACS OF CASH IN FIGURES WHEREAS ULTIMATELY THE FIGURE TURNED OUT RS.14.50 L ACS ONLY. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD DE CLARED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF HIS LAND ONLY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HAD NOT DECLARED THE INCOME OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM THE LAND OF HIS FA THER AND FROM THE LAND OF HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW AND THE TOTAL LAND HOLDINGS OF FATHER AND MOTHER-IN- ITA NO.311 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEA R: 2011-12 3 LAW WAS 21 ACRES. HE SUBMITTED THAT MOTHER-IN-LAW W AS ALSO LIVING WITH THE ASSESSEE AS SHE HAD NO MALE FAMILY MEMBERS LEFT . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FO R NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE LAND OF HIS F ATHER AND MOTHER-IN- LAW WAS THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED THE SAME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT FACTUM OF AGRICULTURE INC OME WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THA T ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME FROM THE LAND O F HIS FATHER AND MOTHER-IN-LAW AND THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS CORRECTLY NOT ACCEPTED THE ARGUMENT OF ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED FARD JAMABANDIS FOR LAND OF 25 A CRES OF THE LAND CULTIVATED BY ASSESSEE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM PARA 2.2 OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE EXISTENCE OF AGRICULTURE INC OME FROM THE LAND OF HIS FATHER AND MOTHER-IN-LAW CAN BE VERIFIED FROM T HE REVENUE RECORDS TO BE PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. FURTHER THE FACTUM OF ASSESSEE HAVING CULTIVATED TH E LAND OF HIS FATHER AND MOTHER-IN-LAW HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY HIS FATHER AND MOTHER- IN-LAW. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE DES ERVS SECOND INNINGS TO BE HEARD IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME CLAIMED T O HAVE BEEN EARNED ITA NO.311 (ASR)/2016 ASST. YEA R: 2011-12 4 FROM THE LAND OF HIS FATHER AND MOTHER-IN-LAW. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHEREA S THE FACT REMAINS THAT ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FILE D FARD JAMABANDI IN RESPECT OF LAND MEASURING 25 ACRES OF LAND WHICH IN CLUDED THE LAND OF HIS FATHER AND MOTHER-IN-LAW. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APP ROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE OFFICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHOULD READJUDICATE ON THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 .08.2016. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) ( T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED: 22.08.2016. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER