BARKAT DOSAN PRASLA, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 25(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4434/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1593 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SONGATE
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.4434/ MUM/2009: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 I.T.A NO.4435/ MUM/2009: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 I.T.A NO.4436/ MUM/2009: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 I.T.A NO.4437/ MUM/2009: ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 BARKAT DOSAN PRASLA, V. THE I.T.O. WARD 25(1)(4) , A/11,203, VAISHALI NAGAR, S.V.ROAD, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), JOGESHWARI,(W), MUMBAI-102. MUMBAI. PA NO.AFZPP 3708 G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.SONGATE O R D E R THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 4.6.2009 OF THE CIT (A)-XXV, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2002-03,2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07, RESPECTIVELY. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL; THEREFORE, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE C ONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE COMMON DISPUTE RAISED IS REGARDING TREATMENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED TO REPRESE NT THE CASE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION BEEN F ILED. I FIND THAT EARLIER THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 5.5.2010 FOR WHICH, NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGD. POST HAD DULY BEEN RECEIVED AS PER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PLAC ED ON RECORD. SINCE ON THAT DATE, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURN ED TO 7.6.2010 AND THE PARTIES WERE ITA NOS.4434 TO 4437/M/2009 M/S. BARKAT DOSAN PRASLA 2 INFORMED THROUGH NOTICE BOARD. THIS SHOWS THAT ON EARLIER DATE OF HEARING ALSO, NO ONE APPEARED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OTHE RWISE THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE DATE OF HEARING AND APPLIED FOR A DJOURNMENT. I, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD D.R. WHO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW. 4. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS BORNE O UT FROM THE RECORD, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.56, 000/-, RS.58,000/-, RS.62,000/- AND 65,500/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2006-07, RESPECTIVELY. THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HOL DINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE AS UNDER:- SURVEY NO. HECTORS SHARE OF APPELLANT HOLDING OF AP PELLANT 24 PART-1 1.08 1/8 0.14 HECTARE 187 0.57 1/8 0.07 HECTARE 28 PART-1 1.34 100% 1.34 HECTARE 13 5.2 1/8 0.65 HECTARE 146 PART-1 0.57 1/8 0.07 HECTARE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSE E OWNED AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 2.27 HECTARE EQUAL TO 6.8 ACRE BUT PERUSAL OF FORM NO.7/12 AND 8A REVEALED THAT ALL THE LAND WAS UN-IRRIGATED. THE CROPS GROWN IN SURVEY N O.28 PART-I WERE ERDA WITH NO MEANS OF IRRIGATION. IN SURVEY NO.13, NO CROPS WER E GROWN WHILE IN SURVEY NO.187, CROPS GROWN WERE BAJARI BUT THERE WAS NO MEANS OF I RRIGATION. FURTHER, NO CROPS WERE MENTIONED AS GROWN IN SURVEY NO.24 PART-1. THUS, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF IRRIGATION FACILITIES, THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT EARN AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND WHATEVER AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE BEEN EARNED FROM UN-IRRIGATED LAND, WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST SUFFICIENT TO CONSUME F OR HOUSEHOLD PURPOSES AND FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH EARNING OF SUC H INCOME. THE AO, THEREFORE, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE INCOME SO DECLARED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ITA NOS.4434 TO 4437/M/2009 M/S. BARKAT DOSAN PRASLA 3 5. IN APPEAL, THE CIT (A) AFTER HEARING THE LD COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE AO AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DECISION, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE LD D.R., PERUSED THE RECORDS AN D CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL CAREFULLY. THERE IS A CLEAR FINDING BOTH BY THE AO AND THE CIT (A) THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NO IRRIGATION FACILI TIES AND THAT INCOME EARNED FROM UN- IRRIGATED LAND WOULD BE JUST SUFFICIENT FOR HOUSEHO LD CONSUMPTION AND FOR INCURRING EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH EARNING OF INCOME. THE RE IS NO MATERIAL BEFORE ME TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LOWER REVENUE AUTHORITIES. I, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) ASSESSING THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE OF HEARI NG ON 7.6.2010 SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 7 TH JUNE, 2010 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXV, MUMBA I 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY-25, MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH SMC, MUMBA I //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NOS.4434 TO 4437/M/2009 M/S. BARKAT DOSAN PRASLA 4 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 7.6.2010 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 7.6.2010 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/J M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ITA NOS.4434 TO 4437/M/2009 M/S. BARKAT DOSAN PRASLA 5