ITO 4(2), Agra V. Dr. H.B.singh, Agra

ITA 386/AGR/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2522 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: R C TOMAR I T P
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 147; 69; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.386/AGR/2009 ASST. YEAR: 2000-01 INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2) VS. DR. H.V. SINGH, AGRA. VILL. & POST KHANDAULI, AGRA. (PAN : AGAPS 0129 E). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.C. TOMAR, I.T.P. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 03.07.2009 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II, AGRA IS ER RONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 7,70,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, AGRA I S ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF ` 90,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN PLA CE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRACTICING DOCTOR AND FILED HI S RETURN OF INCOME AS AN INDIVIDUAL ON 31.08.2000 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 60,000/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 90,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) ON THE BASIS OF INFORM ATION RECEIVED FROM DDI (INV.) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.7,70,000 /- BEING AMOUNT GIVEN TO DR. D.Y. PATEL 2 EDUCATION SOCIETY, KOLHAPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT THE INCOME OF RS.9,50,000/- AFTER ADDING RS.7,70,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITU RE UNDER SECTION 69(C) OF THE ACT BESIDES TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE A SSESSEE AT RS.90,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM MEDICAL PROFESSION AT ` 90,000/- AGAINST THE INCOME SHOWN AT ` 60,000/- VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 31.10.2007 PASSED UN DER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FI LED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 03.07.2009 PARTLY AL LOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. NOW THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.07.2009. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE R ELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN D ISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF ` 7,70,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT, BEING UNEXPLAINED EXPE NDITURE, LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE SAME BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS I NCURRED THE EXPENDITURE OF ` 7,70,000/- WHICH WERE FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED COPY OF BANK ACCOUNTS FROM WHERE THE MONEY FOR INCURRING THE EXP ENDITURE WAS WITHDRAWN BEFORE MAKING THE EXPENDITURE OF THE DISPUTED AMOUNT. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS B EFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ALSO OFFERED HIS EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCES FROM WHICH THE EXPENDITURES WERE INCURRED, LIKE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT WHICH SHOWS THAT THE CREDIT EN TRIES OF AMOUNT IN DISPUTE APPEARING AS A 3 RESULT OF TRANSFER ENTRIES REPRESENTED THE AMOUNT O F ENCASHMENT OF FDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE WIFE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT BROUG HT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF OPPORTUNITY PROVID ED TO HIM IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJECT THE ISSUE I NVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1. 6. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN WHICH THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.90,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TAKING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN PLACE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ESPECIALLY PA GE NOS.5 & 6, PARA NO.8, IN WHICH THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS REPRODUCED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE FROM 1990-91 TO 2001-02 I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WHICH THE DEPA RTMENT HAS ITSELF ACCEPTED AS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2000-01, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED T HE ADDITION OF ` 90,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE PAST HISTORY OF THE A SSESSEE AND TREATED THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE REASONING MENTIONE D BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY REJECTING THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.2. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.02.2011) . SD/- SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: AGRA DATE: 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2011 4 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY