Mrs. Kalki Sreelatha, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 367/BANG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0631 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ETWA MUNDA CITIII
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVAS
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 5 ITA NO.3 67/BANG/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI N BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.367/BANG/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) MRS. KALKI SREELATHA, #547, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, 2 ND STAGE, 3 RD BLOCK, R M V EXTENSION, BANGALORE-94. PA NO.ARMPS 4593 F VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(2), BANGALORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 16.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.01.2013 APPELLANT BY : SHRI V SRINIVAS, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ETWA MUNDA, CIT-I II ORD ER PER GEORGE GEORGE K : THIS APPEAL, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, BANGALORE DATED 30.12.20 11. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE, IN HER GROUNDS OF APPEAL, RAISED FOUR GROUNDS, IN WHICH, GROUND NOS. 1 & 4 BEING GENERAL, NO ADJUDICA TION IS CALLED FOR. GROUND NO.3 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234 B AND 234C OF THE ACT IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. THUS, WE HAV E BEEN LEFT WITH TO ADJUDICATE A SOLITARY GROUND, NAMELY THE CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PAGE 2 OF 5 ITA NO.3 67/BANG/2012 2 SUSTAINING A SUM OF RS.3.66 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF AGR ICULTURAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE AS U NDER: THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES, FURNISHED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ADMITTING A TOT AL INCOME OF RS.46.63 LAKHS + AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.11.76 LAKHS WHICH WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND, SUBSEQUENTLY, TAKEN UP FOR SC RUTINY. DURING THE COURSE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQ UIRED TO EXPLAIN THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. T HE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE REVENUE OFFICIAL OF THE LOCA L GOVERNMENT SHOWING THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HELD BY HER AND ALSO THE LEASE HOLD LANDS OF 14 ACRES AND 75 CENTS ETC. BRUSHING ASIDE THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM, THE AO TOOK A STAND THAT NO OTHER DETAILS WERE FORTH-COMING TO VE RIFY AND DETERMINE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN EARNED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF RECEIP TS OF AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.11.76 LAKHS AND BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX NET U NDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUE BEFOR E THE CIT (A) FOR RELIEF. THE CIT (A), IN SHORT, FOLLOWING HIS E ARLIER FINDING FOR THE AY 2003-04 DATED 5.11.2009 IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AT RS.8.10 LAKHS AND THE BALANCE O F RS.3.66 LAKHS WAS ORDERED TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . PAGE 3 OF 5 ITA NO.3 67/BANG/2012 3 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP WITH THE PR ESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARN ED AR REITERATED MORE OR LESS WHAT WAS PRESENTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A). IN FURTHERANCE, HE HAD FURNISHED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1- 9 PAGES WHICH CONSISTING, INTER ALIA, COPIES OF (I) CERTIFICATE; AND (II) LAND-HOLDING E XTRACTS FROM THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER OF INDUKURPER, NELLORE DISTRICT ETC ., 5.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR HAD CONTEST ED THE CLAIM OF THE LEARNED A R. HE SUBMITTED THAT, CONSIDERING TH E DETAILED REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO, THE CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE SUSTAI NED THE AOS STAND, INSTEAD, A PARTIAL RELIEF WAS EXTENDED TO THE ASSES SEE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) REQUI RES TO BE SUSTAINED IN THE ABSENCE OF REVENUES APPEAL. 5.2. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT CASE RECORDS, DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCE D BY THE LEARNED AR IN THE FORM OF A PAPER BOOK AND ALSO CASE LAWS ON WHIC H THE LEARNED DR HAD PLACED STRONG RELIANCE. 5.2.1. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED, OWNING AGRICULTURAL LANDS TO THE EXTENT O F 12.8 ACRES IN NELLORE DISTRICT AND ALSO LEASE HOLD LANDS OF ABOUT 14.75 A CRES WHEREIN SHE APPEARED TO HAVE RAISED BANANA PLANTATION AND RETURNED THE S AME AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM WAY BACK IN THE AY 2003-04. THIS FACT W AS DULY CONSIDERED AND AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ESTIMATION OF SUCH AG RICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.24000/ACRE BY THE THEN AO. ON FURTHER APPEAL, TH E LEARNED CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS.42000/ACRE F OR THE REASONS PAGE 4 OF 5 ITA NO.3 67/BANG/2012 4 RECORDED IN HIS FINDINGS [SOURCE: CIT (A)S ORDER D T.5.11.2009 FOR AY 2003- 04, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD]. IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY BOTH SIDE THAT THE CIT(A)S ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HAS A TTAINED FINALITY. CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE CIT(A) HAD FOLLOWED HIS EARLIER ORDER FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04 AND, BY OVERSIGHT, ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF RS.30000/ACRE INST EAD OF ACTUAL ESTIMATION OF RS.42000/ACRE [FOR AY 2003-04]. AS A RESULT OF W HICH, HE TREATED THE BALANCE OF RS.3.66 LAKHS [RS.11,76,000 8,10,000 ( 30000 X 28 ACRES) =RS.3,66,000] AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN THE SENSE THAT IF THE ACTUAL FIGURE OF RS.42000/ACRE AS ESTIMATED FOR THE AY 2003-04 IN THE ASSESSEES O WN CASE BY THE SAME CIT (A) WAS ADOPTED, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN AT RS.11,76,000 [RS.42,000 X 28 ACRES =RS.11,7 6,000/-]. AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF TREATING RS.3.66 LAKHS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. BY ADOPTING THE FIGURE OF RS.30000/ACRE INSTEAD OF ACTUAL ESTIMATION OF RS.42000/ACRE, THE CIT (A) HAD COMMITTED A MISTAKE IN ARRIVING AT SUCH A CONCLUSION. 5.2.2. FURTHER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY NONE OTHER THAN OF AN OFFICIAL OF THE REVENUE DEP ARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS H OLDING LANDS IN INDUKURPUR I VILLAGE AND ALSO A LEASE HOLDER OF ABO UT 14.75 ACRES OF LANDS IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WHERE SHE WAS RAISING BANANA PLAN TATION ETC., IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE SAME CANNOT BE DISCARDED UNLES S THERE WAS ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AO TO REB UT SUCH A CLAIM. PAGE 5 OF 5 ITA NO.3 67/BANG/2012 5 5.2.3. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE ISSUE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT THERE WAS NO ANY EXCESS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD AGRICU LTURAL INCOME WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES. IN ESSENCE, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT , THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON THE 29 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (N BARATHVAJA SANKAR) (GEORGE GEORGE K) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER COPY TO : 1. THE REVENUE 2. THE ASSESSEE 3. THE CIT CONCERNE D. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. DR 6. GF MSP/ BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BAN GALORE.