T.V.Magaadevan, Thanjavur V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 365/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58115 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K RAMASAMY SR
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAVI
• Keywords: Source of fund

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENN AI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.363/MDS./2011 ASSESSMEN T YEAR:1998-99 ITA NO.364/MDS./2011 ASSESSMEN T YEAR:2001-02 ITA NO.365/MDS./2011 ASSESSMEN T YEAR:2002-03 ITA NO.366/MDS./2011 ASSESSMEN T YEAR:2003-04 SHRI T.V.MAGAADEVAN, NO.5,FIRST CROSS STREET, PARISUTHAM NAGAR, THANJAVUR 613 001. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(4), CHENNAI 600 034. PAN AAEPM 8167 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.RAVI, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.RAMASAMY, SR.STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 07.03.12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 .03.12 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO.363/MDS/11 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)- II, CHENNAI-34 IN APPEAL NO.210/04-05 DATED 15.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. ITA NO.364/MDS/11 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSI ONER OF ITA. 363 TO 366/MDS/11 2 INCOME TAX(A)-II, CHENNAI-34 IN APPEAL NO.5/04-05 D ATED 15.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. ITA NO.365/MDS/11 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-II, CHEN NAI-34 IN APPEAL NO.177/05-06 DATED 15.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. ITA NO.366/MDS/11 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX(A)-II, CHENNAI-34 IN APPEAL NO.176/05-06 DATED 15.12.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. SHRI K.RAVI, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.RAMASAMY, SENIOR STANDING COUNS EL REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IN THE APPEAL. HE WISHED TO WITHDRAW THE SAME AND HE HAS ALSO SIGNED TO THE EFF ECT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL WAS REGARDING ADDITION REPRESENTING THE AGRICULTURA L INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION T HAT RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CAME TO BE TAKEN UP FOR SCRUT INY. IN THE ITA. 363 TO 366/MDS/11 3 COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DIS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESS EE AND ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT ` 5,000/- PER ACRE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE V ILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (VAO) CERTIFICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED 18.06 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE AGRI CULTURE INCOME EARNED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AGRI CULTURAL LAND HOLDING HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. HOWEVER, HE HAD ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E AT ` 5,000/- PER ACRE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IT WAS THE SUB MISSION THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES MOTHER, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.3 99 TO 409/MDS./2011 DATED 18.11.11 IN THE CASE OF SMT.V.REGINAKANTHAM AT PARA NO.14 OF ITS ORDER HAD ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO THE AGRICULT URAL INCOME. IN REPLY, LD. SR. STANDING COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT T HE VAO DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE ANY CERTIFICATE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY E VIDENCE OF EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT WAS THE SUBMISS ION THAT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. ITA. 363 TO 366/MDS/11 4 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. P ERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREIN BOTH OF US ARE SIGNATORIES SHOWS THAT THE CO-ORDINA TE BENCH HAS ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT THE OUT SET IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ITSEL F IS A VERY OLD ASSESSMENT AND IT WOULD BE PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A NORMAL PERSON TO KEEP OLD RECORDS. FURTHER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92 ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE REVENUE WAS WELL AWARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND WAS DOING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE WEALTH TA X RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLEARLY SHOWS TH E AVAILABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THE SEARCH ALS O CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD AGRICULT URAL LANDS AND WAS DOING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CLEARLY SHOWED THE EXISTENCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ONCE THERE IS SO MUCH OF EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR ITA. 363 TO 366/MDS/11 5 OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF AGRICULTUR AL OPERATIONS AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, TO DO AN ARITHMETICAL EXERCISE TO ESTIMATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AFTER MORE THAN 20 YEARS IS BUT A FUTILE EXERCISE. HERE WE MAY ALSO MENTION THAT THE SEARCH DID NOT REVEAL ANY OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS DISCLOSED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS REASONABLE AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE IS REVERSED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TREAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY TREATING THE ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES MOTHER AND AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LANDS ARE ADJACENT LANDS AND THE FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUAR ELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUN AL IN THE ITA. 363 TO 366/MDS/11 6 CASE OF SMT. V.REGINAKANTHAM. IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS, THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE C.I.T.(A) STANDS DE LETED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PART LY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 16 TH MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( N.S.SAINI ) (GEORGE MATHAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 16 TH MARCH, 2012. K S SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE ITA. 363 TO 366/MDS/11 7