M.R.Sheik Abdullah, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3424/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4788 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , SMC B BENCH, CHENNAI . , ! BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.3424/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SHRI M.R.SHEIK ABDULLAH, NO.21, BIG MOSQUE STREET, ELLIS ROAD, TRIPLICANE, CHENNAI 600 005. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE - 9(4), CHENNAI PAN: AAJPS7953D ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 05.04.2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.04.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-10, CHENNAI DATED 07.10.2016 IN IT NO.18/CIT(A)-10/2011 -12 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S.143 (3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A DE LAY OF 2 DAYS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY HAD OCCURRED DU E TO THE MISPLACEMENT OF THE FILES BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE LD. AR FURTHER PLEADED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS AT N O FAULT, THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED. THE LD. DR STRONGLY OBJECTE D TO THE 2 ITA NO.3424/MDS/2016 SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES , I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DELAY OF 2 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL SHOULD BE CONDONED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY I HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY A ND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ELABORATE AND DESCRIPTI VE GROUND IN HIS APPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THA T THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,290 /- MADE BY THE LD.AO UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE S. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELE VANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 16.10.2009 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,2 0,440/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON CASS/AIR AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT. FROM THE AR REPORT IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS O F RS.22,03,000/- IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT DURING T HE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. ON QUERY IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT OUT OF RS.22,03,000/- AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,43,000/- PERTAIN TO AGRICULTURA L INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR AGRICULT URAL RECEIPTS 3 ITA NO.3424/MDS/2016 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SALE RECEIPTS O F HIS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16,42,710/ -. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE SALE RECEIPTS FOR TH E BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,290/- THE SAME WAS TREATED AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED TH E ORDER OF THE LD.AO AGREEING WITH HIS VIEW. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD.AR PRODUCED THE PURCHASE DEED DATED 06.05.2005 FOR HAVING ACQUIRED AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 49.34 ACRES SITUATED AT ERASAKKANAYAKANUR VILLAGE, UTHTHAMAPALA YAM TALUK, THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. THEREFORE THE EXISTENC E OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO SUBMIT TED THE SANCTION LETTER OF BANK FOR GRANTING AGRICULTURAL LOAN FOR R S.35,00,000/- IN ORDER TO PROVE THE VIABILITY OF HIS AGRICULTURAL AC TIVITY. FURTHER BEFORE THE LD.AO THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED RECEIPTS FOR SA LE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE FOR AN AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO R S.16,42,710/- WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. THERE IS SHORTFA LL OF ONLY RS.2,00,290/- WITH RESPECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF R ECEIPTS FOR HAVING SOLD AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. WHEN THE REVENUE HAS AC CEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.16,42,710/- TO BE GENUINE THEN THERE IS NO REASONABLE LOGIC TO REJECT THE BALANCE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 4 ITA NO.3424/MDS/2016 RS.2,00,290/- ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WERE N O RECEIPTS TO PROVE THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, WHEN IT IS A FACT THAT THE RECEIPT FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES ARE DIFFI CULT TO OBTAIN FROM THE MARKET. THEREFORE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ADDITION MADE FOR RS.2,00,290/- IS NOT WARRANTED. ACCORDING LY, I HEREBY DIRECT THE LD.AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE FOR RS .2,00,290/-. HOWEVER I MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, EARNING OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME IS A FACT TO BE ASCERTAINED FOR EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE REFORE DOES NOT HAVE A PRECEDENT VALUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 24 TH APRIL, 2017. SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /CHENNAI, $% /DATED 24 TH APRIL, 2017 JR % '( )( /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. , ( )/CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. (-. / /DR 6. .0 /GF