Sh. Brahm Pal Saini, Noida V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4408/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86875 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: D K SINGHAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C. M. GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 4408 /DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 200 6 - 0 7 ) SHRI BRAHM PAL SAINI . VS. ITO B , 73 SECTOR 23 NOIDA DISTT WARD - 1 , GAUTAMBUDHNAGAR NOIDA PAN: AJBPS0695M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: - SH.D. K. SINGHAL, CA REVENUE BY: - Y. KAKKAR, SR.DR. DATE OF HEARING: 26. 02.2015 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 04 .03 .201 5 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21 .0 6 .2013 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS), NOIDA . THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO EVIDENCE IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.2,55,000/ - . 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 1.5.2006, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,50,530/ - AND AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.5,10,000/ - . THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COPY OF K H ASRA K H ATAUNI OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ALONG WITH DETAILS AND EVIDENCE OF EXPENSES MADE FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUC E AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS REGARDING ITS SALES. I.T.A .NO. - 4408/DEL/2013 2 3. I N RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF KHASRA K H ATAUNI AND RECEIPT S OF SALE OF MANGO CROPS AND POPULAR TREES. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT ALL THE CROPS HAD BEEN SOLD IN CASH AND EXPENSES HAD ALSO BEEN MADE IN CASH, FOR WHICH NO BILLS WER E AVAILABLE. THE AO HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RECEIPTS , BILLS AND VOUCHERS ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.2,55,000/ - AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.2,55,000/ - WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED SALE AGREEMENT / A LETTER OF SALE OF MANGO AND POPULAR TREES ETC., BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO SOLD SUGARCANE FOR R S.65,179/ - TO IQBALPUR SUGAR MILL, AND THE AMOUNT WAS CREDITED IN SAVING ACCOUNT WITH SBI, ROORKEE. TH E ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISH ED THE COPY OF BANK PASSBOOK BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . H OWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FIND THAT IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND DERIVES INCOME FROM THE SAME. THE ONLY DISPUTE ARISES REGARDING THE QUANTUM OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES FROM THE PIECE OF LAND OF 4.726 HECTARES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF RECEIPT FROM SALE OF POPULAR TREE AND MANGO CROP, HE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETA ILS ALONG WITH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE ABOVE. SO FAR AS AGRICULTURAL CROPS ARE CONCERNED THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT ALL THE CROPS ARE SOLD IN CASH AND I.T.A .NO. - 4408/DEL/2013 3 EXPENSES ARE ALSO BEING INCURRED IN CASH FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE THE BILLS/VOUCHERS AND THAT NO ACCOUNTS BOOKS OR ANY RECORDS WHATSOEVER ARE BEING MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS I AM CONVINCED THAT THE AO HAD NO OPTION BUT TO ASSESS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON ESTIMATE BASIS B Y TREATING THE 50% OF DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.5,10,000/ - AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WHILE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.2,55,000/ - WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. MOREOVER, EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS C OMPLETELY FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER BEFORE ME IN SUPPORT OF EARNING OF RS.5,10,000/ - AS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND TO THAT EXTENT I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY HIM IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS, I CONFIRM THE ACTION OF AO IN ESTIMATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.2,55,000/ - WHILE TREATING THE REMAINING RS.2,55,000/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. NOW THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF THE LAND ON WHICH MANGO TREES AND POPULAR TREES WERE GROWN . IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISH ED EVIDENCE OF LAND HOLDING AND FOR CULTIVATING OF CROPS IN THE FORM OF KHASRA KHATAUNI WHICH WAS NOT DOUBTED BY THE AO. T HEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR SIMILAR INCOME WAS SHOWN WHI CH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT BUT ONLY A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/ - WAS MADE . I N HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS , T HE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE RECEIPTS FOR THE SA LE OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS , AND THAT THE INCOME FROM OTHER I.T.A .NO. - 4408/DEL/2013 4 SOURCES WAS SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME . T HEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD . I N THE INSTANT CASE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE AGRICULTURE LAND ON WHICH MANGO TREES AND POPULAR TREES WER E GROWN, THE ASSESSEE ALSO CULTIVATED SUGARCANE AND FURNISHED THE COPY OF KHASRA KHATAUNI BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE AO . H OWEVER, THE AO TREATED 50% OF THE DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BUT WITHOUT ANY BASIS. AT THE SA ME TIME IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE SALES, BILLS FOR SALE OF MANGO CROPS . THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SOME DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR TO COVER THE LEAKAGE , IF ANY . T HE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000 / - WAS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR BY THIS DEPARTMENT, THE SAID CONTENTION WAS NOT REBUTTED. W E THEREFORE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SUSTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/ - ONLY . ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WILL GET RELIEF OF RS.2,0 5 ,000/ - . 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 /03/2015 . SD/ - SD/ - ( C. M. GARG ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 4408/DEL/2013 5 DATED: 04 /03/2015 *AK VERMA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR