Shri Sohanlal Patel, Indore V. THE ITO 3(3), Indore

ITA 424/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5984 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

Judgement Text

SOHANLAL PATEL ITA NO. 424/IND/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU NAL SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBE R ITA NO.424/IND/2016 A.Y.2009-10 SOHANLAL PATEL INDORE ::: APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), INDORE ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI ANIL KAMAL GARG RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 7.6.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 9 .6.2016 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.2.2016 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-22, NEW DELHI,HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF CIT(A),INDOR E-2. 2. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCES OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN SOHANLAL PATEL ITA NO. 424/IND/2016 2 CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME TOWARDS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 3. THE FACTS, IN SHORT, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS 13.5 BIGHAS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM WHICH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS DECLARED AT RS. 10 LACS. WHILE SCRUTINISING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.4 LACS AND IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR IT WAS SHOWN AT RS.5,15,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT I N THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALMOST DOUBLE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR AND MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF TIMES THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE IMMEDIATE LY PRECEDING YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE CL AIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SOHANLAL PATEL ITA NO. 424/IND/2016 3 TRANSLATES TO ALMOST RS. 25,000/- PER BIGHA. HOWEVER, T HE SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WERE SUBMITTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,37,259/-. NEITHER EVIDENCE OF SUCH A HIGH CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS FURNISHED NOR THE DETAI LS OF EXPENSES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER OBSER VED THAT STILL THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF AGRI CULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,10,194/- AGAINST SALE BI LLS OF RS.5,37,259/-. THEREFORE, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ACC EPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS 95% OF THE SALE PROCEEDS AS PER THE SALE BILLS PRODUCED AND IS COMPARABLE WITH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AND IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEARS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 4. BEFORE ME, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WI TH ANY SOHANLAL PATEL ITA NO. 424/IND/2016 4 MATERIAL ON RECORD AND SIMPLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPO N THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH THE SUBMISS ION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTTERLY FAILED TO PROVE ITS CASE B EFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND AS SUCH THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES IN THE WAKE OF THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THIS CASE, I FIND TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT IT IS SURPRISING THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE IS DISCLOSED AT RS.4,00,000/- AND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IT WAS DECLARED AT RS. 5,15 ,000/- BUT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE SHOWN IS MORE THAN RS. 10,00,000/-. WIT HOUT MAKING ANY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME EXORBITANTLY HIGH WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY REA SON. NO SOHANLAL PATEL ITA NO. 424/IND/2016 5 FURTHER LAND WAS GOT IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COOPERATING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, HENCE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY THAN TO ESTIMATE THE IN COME. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALMOST DOUBLE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR AND MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF TIMES THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE IMMEDIATE LY PRECEDING YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER FOUN D THAT THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TRANSLATES TO ALMOST RS. 25,000/- PER BIG HA. HOWEVER, THE SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WERE SUBMITTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5,37,259/-. NEI THER ANY EVIDENCE OF SUCH A HIGH CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS FURNISHED NOR THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS BACKGRO UND OF THE MATTER, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AUTHORIT IES SOHANLAL PATEL ITA NO. 424/IND/2016 6 BELOW WERE FULLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE CONFIRMED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JUNE, 2016 SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER 22 ND JUNE, 2016 DN/- SOHANLAL PATEL ITA NO. 424/IND/2016 7