Sh Mohinder Kaur Josh, Amritsar. V. The Income-tax Officer, Amritsar.

ITA 351/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 35120914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 350 & 351(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 PAN;AKRPS2001E SH. MANINDER SINGH, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MALOUT. WARD 3(2), AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. J.P. SINGH, CA RESPONDENT BY:SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING :13/03/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:14/03/2012 ORDER PERBENCH; THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARISE FROM TWO D IFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR, EACH DATED 23.03.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.350(ASR)/2011 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.2,75,220/- MADE BY T HE AO BY ITA NOS 350 & 351(ASR)/2011 2 TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM UNDISC LOSED SOURCES. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY RELIED UPON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE LD. A.O. OFFICER DATED 21.03.2011 WITHOUT CO NFRONTING THIS REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT PROVIDING A NY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONFRONT THIS REMAND REPORT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED J FORMS WHICH ARE STATUTORY FORMS ON WHICH HEAVY PURCHASE TAXES WERE PAID TO THE STATE GOVERNM ENT AND LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT FOUND ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THESE J F ORMS. THEREFORE, JUST BECAUSE F.Y. 2002-03 WAS HONESTLY A ND INNOCENTLY MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS AFFIDAV IT, THAT INCOME CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR CONFIRMING THIS ADDI TION OF RS.275,220/-. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY INFERRED AND CON CLUDED THAT THE LAND TAKEN ON LEASE DURING F.Y. 2002-03 IMPLIED POS SESSION OF THE LAND STARTING FROM IST APRIL,2002 AND ENDING ON 31 ST MARCH 2003 INSTEAD OF ACTUAL POSSESSION OF LAND STARTING FROM NOVEMBER,2001 FOR SOWING WHEAT CROP AND ENDING UP T O OCTOBER, 2002 FOR RICE CROP AND THESE CROPS WERE HA RVESTED AND SOLD IN APRIL, 2002 AND OCTOBER, 2002 RESPECTIVELY I.E. IN F.Y.2002-03. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN ADDING THE WORD ONLY TO THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER MENTIONED IN HIS AFF IDAVIT THAT HE HAS TAKEN LAND ON LEASE ONLY DURING F.Y.2002- 03 AND WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND IS ENG AGED IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CONTINUOUSLY SINCE LAST MAN Y YEARS BY CULTIVATING HIS ANCESTRAL LAND ON LEASEHOLD BASIS F ROM HIS MOTHER, BROTHER ETC. ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.351(ASR)/2011 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ON INCOME OF RS.275,220/- LE VIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME A S INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. ITA NOS 350 & 351(ASR)/2011 3 2. THAT WHILE DECIDING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY RELIED UPON ONLY ON HIS OWN QUANTUM APPEAL ORDER DATED 23.03.2011 IN RESPECT OF APPEAL NO.266/2008-0 9 WITHOUT INDEPENDENTLY EXAMINING THE FACTS AND WITHOUT GIVIN G HIS FINDINGS FOR CONCEALMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THIS QUANT UM APPEAL ORDER DATED 23.03.2011 IS ITSELF ILLEGAL AS IT IS B ASED UPON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO DATED 21.03.2011 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE QUANTUM APPEAL ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE TO CONFRONT THIS REMAND REPORT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED J FORMS WHICH ARE STATUTORY FORMS FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND, ON WHICH HEAVY PURCHASE T AXES WERE PAID TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT FOUND ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THESE J FORMS. THEREFORE, JUST BEC AUSE SOME ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED, THAT ALONE CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ON INCOME OF RS.275,220/ -. 4. FIRST OF ALL, WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITANO.350(ASR)/2011. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THE ASSESSE ES APPEAL AS ARISING FROM THE AOS ORDER ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, AS UNDER: IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME, HE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE I.E. PROOF OF LAND HOLDING AND SALE OF AGR ICULTURAL PRODUCE ETC.IN A RESPONSE TO THIS, VIDE LETTER DATE D 25.01.2006 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK 75 ACRES OF LAND ON LEASE FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AND AFTER PAYING THE LEASE RENT AND TAKING OUT THE EXPENSES, THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. VIDE THIS OFFICE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 25.01.2006 , THE ASSESSEE WAS THEN ASKED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE ADDRESSES O F THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE LAND WAS TAKEN ON LEASE, EVID ENCE OF LEASE, THE AMOUNT OF LEASE MONEY, DETAIL OF AGRICUL TURAL ITA NOS 350 & 351(ASR)/2011 4 EXPENSES AND FORM J FOR THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCE. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, VIDE LETTER DATED 30.01.2006 IT W AS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK LAND ON LEASE FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: 1. GURCHARAN SINGH S/O JANGIR SINGH, VILL. KHERI 2. SUKHJIT SIGH S/O GURCHARAN SINGH, VILL. KHERI 3. BALJINDER KAUR W/ DASONDHA SINGH, VILL. KHERI VIDE THIS OFFICE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 10/02/2006 , THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE LEASE OF LAND AND THE AMOUNT OF L EASE RENT, EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IN THE FORM OF FORM J AS ALREADY REQUIRED VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTR Y DATED 25.01.2006. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 16.02.2006. ON T HIS DATE, NOBODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS NOR ANY WRITTEN REQ UEST FOR ADJOURNMENT FILED. THE CASE WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR 28. 02.2006. THE SERVICE TO THIS LETTER FIXING THE CASE FOR 28.0 2.2006 COULD NOT BE EFFECTED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE A T THE GIVEN ADDRESS AS PER REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR PLACED ON FI LE. AGAIN, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 31.03.2006 VIDE THIS OFFICE LETT ER DATED 14.03.2006 WHICH WAS SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS SERVED ON THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. ON 21.03.2006, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, ATTENDED T HE PROCEEDINGS WITH WHOM THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED AND EX AMINED. HOWEVER, THE COUNSEL DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE I N SUPPORT OF THE LEASE OF THE LAND IN THE SHAPE OF LEASE DEED AN D/OR COPY OF THE REVENUE RECORD OF THE LAND IN THE ABSENCE OF WH ICH, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING EARNED AGRICULTURAL I NCOME OF RS.6,05,478/- IS NOT ESTABLISHED AND AS SUCH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF INCOME EARNED LIE S ON THE ASSESSEE. IF HE DISPUTE LIABILITY FOR TAX, IT IS FO R HIM TO SHOW EITHER THAT THE RECEIPT WAS NOT INCOME OR THAT IF, IT WAS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION UNDER ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH PROOF, THE A.O. IS ENTITLED TO TREAT IT AS TAXABLE INCOME. THESE VIEWS GET SUPPORT FROM THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF K ALE KHAN MOHAMMAD HANIF VS. CIT, 50 ITR PAGE 1-4.IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE INCOME OF RS.6,05,478/- HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED TO BE CAMOUFLAGED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN SUPPORT ITA NOS 350 & 351(ASR)/2011 5 OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO TENDER E VEN AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE THAT EITHER HE HIMSELF OWNED ANY AGRIC ULTURAL LAND OR TAKEN IT ON LEASE AND /OR REVENUE RECORD OF THE LAND INSPITE OF THE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED. I AM, THEREF ORE, HAVING NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF RS.6,05,47 8/- IS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASS ESSEE IS CLEARLY GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) NOTICE FOR WHICH IS BEING ISSUED SEPARATELY. 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSE SUBMITTED CER TAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A(1)(B) OF THE ACT, WHICH WE RE NOT ADMITTED AND ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER FOR NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE PROCE EDED TO FILE THE APPEAL AGAINST THAT ORDER BEFORE THE ITAT, WHO PASSED THE ORDER IN ITA NO.297(ASR)/2008 DATED 12 TH SEPT., 2008 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: HENCE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRO DUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERY VITAL IN DECIDING THE ISSUE AN D THE ASSESSEE IS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT PRODUCING B EFORE THE AO BECAUSE OF HIS ILL HEALTH. HENCE, WE DIRECT, THE LD . CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE SAME AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING OP PORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACC ORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5.1. THE LD. CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE ITA T, AMRITSAR BENCH, SENT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE A.O. FOR T HE REMAND REPORT. THE AO IN TURN SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT DATED 21.03.201 1. THE LD. CIT(A) TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O., ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ITA NOS 350 & 351(ASR)/2011 6 PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE HIM AND THE MATERIALS AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD, VIDE PARA 6.2 OF HIS ORDER ACCEPTED THE SALE OF RICE AS GENUI NE AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,30,260/- BY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 ,75,220/- WITH RESPECT TO SALE OF WHEAT. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. J.P. SINGH , CA, MAINLY RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ARGUED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN SUPPORT THE AFFIDA VITS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE KHASRA, GIRDAWARI AND JAMABANDI AS A PR OOF OF GROWING THE CROPS BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A). THE WHEAT AND RICE SALE PROCEEDS HAVE BEEN SOLD IN THE MANDI AND AS A PROOF OF THE SAID SALE FORM-J HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A).TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME AND PRAYED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, AT THE OUTSET, INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD STATED THAT HE HAD TAKEN AGRICULTUR AL LAND ON LEASE FROM THREE PERSONS NAMELY, SH. GURCHARAN SINGH, SH. SUKH JIT SIGH AND ITA NOS 350 & 351(ASR)/2011 7 SMT.BALJINDER KAUR. WHEREAS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) T HE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD TAKEN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ON LEASE FROM FIVE PERSONS I.E. INCLUDING THREE PERSONS AS MENTIONED HEREINABO VE AND IN ADDITION S/SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH & KULWINDER SINGH WERE THE PERSONS MENTIONED FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED TO HAVE TAKEN THE AGRI CULTURAL LAND ON LEASE. IT WAS STATED AS PER AFFIDAVITS READ BY THE LD. DR, SH . TARSEM LAL THAT THE LAND TAKEN FROM SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH WAS ABOUT 12.5 ACRE S AND FROM SH. KULWINDER SINGH IS ABOUT 25 ACRES. MOREOVER, KHASRA , GIRDAWARI AND JAMABANDI WAS PLACED ON RECORD ONLY WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE SAID FIVE PERSONS I.E. SMT. BALJINDER KAUR WHO IS STATED TO B E MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO OTHER KHASRA, GIRDAWARI AND JAMABANDI WITH R ESPECT TO OTHER SO CALLED LESSORS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) AND EVEN BEFORE THIS BENCH. AS PER FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THAT OF THE A.O., IF THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS ON LEASE FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2002 TO 31.03.2003 ONLY, THEN IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE AS SESSEE TO GROW WHEAT IN THE MONTH OF APRIL AND SELL THE SAME IN THE MONTH OF AP RIL, 2002. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS COOKED UP THE STORY IN EVADING TAX BY DECLARING CONCEALED INCOME IN THE FORM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ITA NOS 350 & 351(ASR)/2011 8 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE D ETAILS OF LESSOR WERE SUBMITTED WRONGLY AS THREE PERSONS BEFORE THE AO WH EREAS THERE WERE ACTUALLY FIVE LESSORS. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES WHET HER THE ASSESSEE HAD AT ALL ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE FIVE LESSOR S OR NOT. TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION BY THIS BENCH, ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ARGUMENTS BY BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE FIVE SO CALLED LESSORS STATIN G THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WERE OWNED BY THEM HAD BEEN GIVEN ON LEASE TO THE A SSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2002 TO 31.03.2003 ONLY. WHEN ASKED AS A QUERY FROM THIS BENCH TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE LESSORS WERE CULTIVATING THEIR AGRICULTUR AL LAND AND SELLING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE BEFORE 01.04.2002 AND AFTER 31.03.2003 AND HOW THEY WERE HELPLESS NOT TO CULTIVATE THEIR OWN LAND DURIN G THE PERIOD OF 01.04.2002 TO 31.03.2003, STATED TO BE PERIOD OF LEASE TAKEN B Y THE LESSEE THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL COULD NOT ADVANCE ANY ARGUMENTS OR EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. HE RELIED UPON THE AFFIDAVITS MENTIONED HER EINABOVE, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD I N THE PAPER BOOK. THE ARGUMENTS BY THE LD. DR APPEAR TO BE CONVINCING AND ALSO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THAT OF THE A.O. THAT THE CROP OF WHEAT CANNOT BE GROWN ITA NOS 350 & 351(ASR)/2011 9 IN THE MONTH OF APRIL AND CANNOT BE SOLD IN THE SAM E MONTH AND TO THAT EXTENT, IT APPEARS TO BE A COOKED UP STORY. AS REGA RDS KHASRA, GIRDAWARI AND JAMABANDI, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD BE FORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND EVEN BEFORE US WITH REGARD TO FOUR OTHER SO-CALLED LESSORS EXCEPT THAT OF HIS OWN MOTHER SMT. BALJINDE R KAUR. IT WILL NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HERE WHAT ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR A MOTHER TO LEASE LAND TO HER SON AND THAT TOO FOR ONE YEAR, THOUGH T HE SAME VIEW IS APPLICABLE ON OTHER LESSORS AS WELL. THE WHOLE PROCESS OF FILI NG THE AFFIDAVITS AND CLAIMING AGRICULTURAL INCOME APPEARS TO BE COOKED U P STORY. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,05,480/- A ND HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. A S REGARDS FORM-J WHICH CAN ONLY BE TAKEN AS AN EVIDENCE OF SALE OF CROP B UT NOT THAT OF CROP GROWN. THE LD. CIT(A), WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS AS DISC USSED HEREINABOVE HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF RI CE AMOUNTING TO RS.3,30,260/- WHICH CANNOT BE APPRECIATED. SINCE TH E DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS NOT BEFORE US, THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO RESTRICT OURSELVES BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED IN ITA NO.350(ASR)/2011 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS 350 & 351(ASR)/2011 10 9. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 351(ASR)/2011 REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT, IMPOSED BY THE A.O.. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE AS UNDER: A NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C)OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS ISSU ED FOR LEVYING PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BECAUSE IT WAS NOTICED DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.6,05,478/- BESIDES BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.64,650/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT W AS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK 74 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON LEAS E FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AND AFTER PAYING THE LEASE RENT AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL EXPENSES, THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.6,05,4 78/- WAS DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. VIDE THIS OFFICE ORDER SHE ET ENTRY DATED 25.01.2006, THE ASSESSEE WAS THEN ASKED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE LAND WAS TAKEN ON LEASE, EVIDENCE OF LEASE, THE AMOUNT OF LEASE MONEY, DETAI LS OF AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES INCURRED AND FORM J FOR THE SALE OF AGRICU LTURAL PRODUCE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE BEFORE THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER BY PERSONALLY OR IN WRITING. AFTER THIS THE AO ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: I) BUSINESS INCOME AS COMMISSION BY SALE OF CARS RS .75,000/- TRUCKS AND TROLLEYS ETC. II) INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES RS.6,05,478/- (WHICH WAS SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME) NOW AN OPPORTUNITY LETTER DATED 05.09.06 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 12.09.2006 FOR EXPLAINING WHY PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT MAY NOT BE IMPOSED UPON YOU WHICH IS PENDING IN THIS OF FICE. BUT IT IS REPORTED BY THE NOTICE SERVER VIDE REPORT DATED 08. 09.2006 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHIFTED FROM AMRITSAR AND FURTHER LOCA L ENQUIRIES MADE REVEAL THAT THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT AVAILABLE. AFTER THIS ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 12.09.2006 FIXING THE DAT E FOR 21.09.2006 WAS SERVED BY AFFIXTURE ON THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS O F THE ASSESSEE.ON DUE DATE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDI NGS NOR ANY WRITTEN REPLY FILED IN THIS OFFICE. ITA NOS 350 & 351(ASR)/2011 11 I AM, THEREFORE, HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING T HAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY BEEN ASSESSED AT RS.6 ,80,478/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BEING CONCEALED INCOME IN THE SH APE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THUS FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOM E FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04. I AM, THEREFORE, SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS S HOWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE SHAPE OF AGRICULTURAL INC OME WHICH WAS TAXABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE MINIMUM I MPOSABLE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE E VADED SUBJECT TO MAXIMUM OF 300% OF SUCH TAX. HOWEVER, TAKING A LENI ENT VIEW, I IMPOSED MINIMUM PENALTY @ 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO HAV E BEEN EVADED WHICH COMES TO RS.1,73,748/- IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLO SED INCOME. CALCULATIONS OF PENALTY LEVIED ARE MADE AS UNDER: TAX ON ASSESSED INCOME :RS.1,78,143/- TAX ON RETURNED INCOME :RS. 4,395/- TAX SOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN EVADED:RS.1,73,748/- MAXIMUM PENALTY IMPOSABLE :RS.5.21.244/- MINIMUM PENALTY IMPOSABLE :RS.1,73,478/- 10. THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 6.1 OF HIS ORDER DIREC TED THE A.O. TO CONFIRM THE PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION SU STAINED VIDE HIS ORDER IN QUANTUM APPEAL OF EVEN DATE AND RECOMPUTE THE MINIM UM LEVIABLE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AS 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO B E EVADED ON THE PART OF THE CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.2,75,220/-. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS HELD BY US IN OUR QUANTUM ORDER IN ITA NO.350(AS R)/2011(SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE HAD COOKED UP STORY BY DECLARING THE AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EXPLANATION IN THE P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR EVEN BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ITA NOS 350 & 351(ASR)/2011 12 CONCEALED THE INCOME OR HAS NOT FURNISHED INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED INCOME AND HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT EXPLANATION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR EVEN ANY PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR BEFORE US, WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE PENALTY L EVIED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.350 & 351 (ASR)/2011 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14TH MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14TH MARCH , 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. MANINDER SINGH, MALOUT. 2. THE ITO, WARD-3(2), AMRITSAR. 3. THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR. 4. THE CIT, AMRITSAR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER