ITO, Pondicherry V. Smt. Chitra, Pondicherry

ITA 46/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8126 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Depreciation; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 46/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1) PONDICHERRY VS. SMT. CLAUDINE JULIANNE CHITRA @ CHITRA SANKARANARAYANAN, NO.4, 16A CROSS, AVVAI NAGAR, LAWSPET, PONDICHERRY 605 008. ./ I.T.A. NO.1399/MDS/2016. / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010. SMT. CLAUDINE JULIANNE CHITRA @ CHITRA SANKARANARAYANAN, NO.4, 16A CROSS, AVVAI NAGAR, LAWSPET, PONDICHERRY 605 008. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1) PONDICHERRY [PAN AAFPC 9023Q] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI. A.V. SREEKANTH, IRS, JCIT. !' #$ % & /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE ' % () /DATE OF HEARING : 21-12-2016 *+ % () /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-01-2017 !' / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ASS ESSEE RESPECTIVELY FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS, DIR ECTED AGAINST ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 2 -: ORDERS DATED 22.08.2012 AND 23.03.2016, OF LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XII, CHENNAI AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- PUDUCHERRY, RESPECTIVELY. 2. APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08- 2009 IS TAKEN UP FIRST FOR DISPOSAL. APPEAL FILED B Y THE DEPARTMENT IS DELAYED BY THIRTY SIX DAYS. CONDONATION PETITION H AS BEEN FILED. REASON SHOWN FOR THE DELAY SEEMS TO BE JUSTIFIED. L D. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTIO N. DELAY IS CONDONED. APPEAL IS ADMITTED. 3. GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ASSAIL THE DELETION O F AN ADDITION OF A87,15,391/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THOUGH THE GROUND MENTIONS THE ADDITION AS A87,15,391/-, ACTUA L ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS A88,15,391/- 4. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE RUNNING TEA AND C ARDAMOM ESTATES HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF A1,50,000/-. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF A45,20,000/- WHICH WAS CLAI MED AS EXEMPT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAD ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 3 -: FILED A RETURN OF INCOME. THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2008, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, REFLECT ED A CAPITAL OF A88,15,391/-. ASSESSEE WAS QUERIED ON THIS ASPECT. EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SHE HAD TAKEN CASH ADVANCE FR OM 47 PERSONS WHO WERE BUYING CARDAMOM FROM HER. AS PER ASSESSEE SHE HAD RECEIVED A1,00,000/- EACH FROM EIGHT PERSONS AND A5 0,000/- EACH FROM THIRTY NINE PERSONS AGGREGATING TO A27.50 LAKHS. F URTHER, AS PER ASSESSEE SHE HAD RECEIVED A10,00,000/- FROM HER PAR ENTS AS MARRIAGE GIFT, ANOTHER A10,00,000/- FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW AND A15,00,000/- FROM HER HUSBAND. ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPORT THE ABOVE BY EVIDENCES. FOR THIS, SHE F ILED AFFIDAVITS FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW, FATHER AND HER HUSBAND. SHE ALS O STATED THAT SHE HAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF A14 LAKHS, A30 LAKHS, A2 5 LAKHS AND A35 LAKHS FOR FINANCIAL YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-2007 RESPECTIVELY. 5. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE AB OVE CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EV IDENCE FOR CAPITAL CONTRIBUTED BY HER OR FOR THE MACHINERY PURCHASED USING SUCH CAPITAL. AS PER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE WAS HAVING TWO CARDAMOM PROCESSING UNITS RUNNIN G SINCE 2003 ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 4 -: COULD NOT BE BELIEVED. HE HELD THAT THE SUM OF A88, 15,391/- AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND MADE AN ADDITION. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ARGUMENTS TA KEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) ARE SUMMARIZED HEREUNDER:- (I) SHE WAS AN AGRICULTURIST AND HER ONLY SOURCE OF INC OME WAS FROM TEA AND CARDAMOM ESTATES. (II) THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS FILED SINCE THIS WAS REQUIRED FOR AVAILING A BANK L OAN. (III) ALL THE ASSETS SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEET WERE OPENING BALANCE AND CONTINUING SINCE 1999. (IV) WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS SURPLUS O F ASSETS OVER BANK LOANS. (V) SHE WAS CULTIVATING CARDAMOM AND OTHERS CROPS SINC E VERY MANY YEARS AND HAD BEEN DOING SO SINCE 1994 WHEN SH E PURCHASED 52 ACRES OF LAND IN MEGA MALLAY, KADAMALAGUNDU VILLGE, ANDIPATTI TALUK, TAMIL NADU. (VI) SHE HAD TAKEN AN SALE CUM LEASE 51.18 ACRES OF CARD AMOM LANDS IN BODI HILLS, KOTTAGUDI VILLAGE, BODI TALUK , THENI DIST, TAMIL NADU. (VII) THE LAND MENTIONED ABOVE CAME ALONGWITH BUILDING, P LANT AND MACHINERY ETC FOR A CONSIDERATION OF A1,31,00,0 00/- FROM ONE SHRI. SUNDARAJ, CELLATHAI & OTHERS. (VIII) AFTER ACQUIRING THE ABOVE LAND WITH BUILDING, PLANT AND MACHINERY, SHE HAD REMODELED THE MACHINERY BY SPEND ING A SUM OF A42,00,000/- IN THE YEAR 2000 AND LATER I N THE ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 5 -: YEAR 2002 INSTALLED POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT FO R A2,25,600/-. (IX) IN JANUARY, 2007, ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ON LEASE 79 AC RES OF LAND FROM ONE SMT. ROSAMMA VARGHESE FOR AN ANNUAL RENT OF A3,95,000/-. (X) IN JANUARY, 2007 SHE HAD ALSO TAKEN 32.39 ACRES OF LAND ON LEASE FROM VEERANAN & VELLAICHAMY FOR AN ANNUAL LEA SE RENT OF A1,66,950/-. (XI) FOR ACQUIRING THE ABOVE LANDS, LOAN WAS SOUGHT FRO M IDBI BANK AND THE BANK HAD INSISTED ON FILING OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN. 7. IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE, ASSESSEE HAD FILED BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COPIES OF THE AGREEMENTS FOR SALE CUM LEASE OF THE LAND AND A REVISED BALANCE SH EET AS ON 31.03.2008. 8. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SOUGHT A R EMAND REPORT FROM THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE ASSESSE E HAD FILED A FRESH STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.03.2008 AND CERTAIN A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT STATED A S UNDER:- 'THE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS PRODUCED A 8 YEARS LEASE / SALE AGREEMENT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED WITH 4 PERSONS. THE SAID AGREEMENT HAS EXECUTED ON 12.11.1999, WHICH IS AN UNREGISTERED DOCUMENT. ON PERUSAL OF AGREEMENT, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED LEASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, BUILDING, PLANT AND MACHINERY FOR A TOTAL SUM OF A31,00,000/-, ON THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID A SUM OF RS. 31, 00, 000/ - AND THE BALANCE WAS PAYABLE ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 6 -: WIT YEARS. THE TOTAL COST OF BUILDING WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 95, 00, 000/ -, PANT & MACHINERY- RS.36,OO,000. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY OF THE ABOVE PERSONS WITH WHOM SHE HAS ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR EXAMINATION DESPITE SEVERAL REMINDERS . ENQUIRIES WERE MADE BY THE TRO, PONDICHERRY WITH TH E LAND OWNERS WITH WHOM. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE SALE / LEASE AGREEMENT. ENQUIRY FROM SMT. CHINNATHAUAMMAL AND SHRI S. KANNAN, REVEALS THAT TH E LAND SITUATED AT THENI DIST., PERIYAKULAM R.O. BODINAKANUR-SRO, KOTIAKUDI LLILLAGE, PICHANQARAI - PATTA. NO. 177 - SY. NO. 917/1,917/2-41 ACT AND 98 CENTS IS NOT OWNED BY THEM AND THERE WERE NOT IN POSSESSION NOW AND THEY HAVE ALSO NOT MADE ANY LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE SMT. CHITRA. SIMILARLY, SHRI S.A.C SUBRARNANIA RAJA (4 'H PARTY OF/HE ABOVE SALE / LEASE AGREEMENT) WAS CONTACTED OVER PHONE (AS HE WAS OUT OF STATION) BY THE TRO AND ENQUIRED ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY SITUAT ED AT THENI DIST., PERIUAKULAM. R.O., BODINAYAKANUR-SRO, KOTIAKUDI VILLAGE KURANQANI PATTAIUARU KAANAL - PATTA NO. 470, SY. NO.699 (27 ACRE AND 38 CENTS), SY. NO. 700 (02 ACRE AND 85 CENTS], SY. NO. 70Z (11 ACRE AND 38 CENTS), PATTA NO. 124 - SY. NO. 702 (04 ACRE AND 05 CENTS) AND SY. NO. 703 (05 ACRE AND 52 CENTS). HE CATEGORICALLY DENIED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY. IT WAS ALSO CONFIRMED FROM EC COPY OBTAINED FROM THE SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, BODINAYAKANUR. IN THE YEAR 2000, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT SHE HAD MADE EXPENDITURE OF RS.42 LAKHS FOR REPAIRS AND REMODELINQ OF EXISTING PLANT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROD UCED ONLY A RECEIPT DATED 02.1.1.2000 IN EVIDENCE OF THE ABOVE EXPENSES OF RS. 42 LAKHS. NO DETAILS REGARDING THE PAYMENTS MADE FOR THE ABOVE PURCHASE AND ANY OTHER EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLAT ION OF THE ABOVE PLANT AND MACHINERY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DECLARED THAT SHE HAD ACQUIRED A POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT FOR RS.2,25,600/-. . BUT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SHE HAD SPENT THE ABOVE SUM FOR ACQUIRING THE POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT. THE TOTAL COST BY THE FIXED ASSET, PLANT & MACHINERY ARRIVED AT RS.17,30,00,000/-. ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 7 -: THE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY A SUM OF RS.1 CRORE TO THE ABOV E PERSONS AS LESS AMOUNT, WHICH IS SHOWN AS SUNDRY CREDITORS IN. THE REVISED R/I. . THE ASSESSEE HAS AN OD ACCOUNT IN SBT A SUM OF RS.48,56,3021- WAS THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.03.2008. THE ASSESSEE' S REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO DECLARED THAT THE LEASE OF LAND WAS NOT YET OVER AND IT IS STILL IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE EXTENT OF LAND USED [OR CULTIVATION W AS 41.98 + 51.18 = 93.16 ACRES. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE LEASE HOLD PROPERTIES AS HIS OWN PROPERTY AND HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE LEASE HOLD ASSETS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. REGARDING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF HAVING AGRICULTUR AL INCOME FROM THE F. Y. 1999-.2000 ONWARDS, EXCEPT FOR A VAO CERTIFICATE, NO OTHER EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD H AS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COOPERATED DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. SHE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY LAND HOLDING DETAILS, SALE PROCEEDS OR ANY BANK AI C COPIES IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN COOPERATED OR FURNISHED ANY DETAILS FOR PREPARATION OF REMAND REPORT AFTER GIVING AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES. HEN CE .. IT IS CONSTRUED THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF INVEST MENT MADE IN THE. EARLIER YEARS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED.' 9. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CONS IDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORT OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SEC. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) COULD NOT BE A TTRACTED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCE APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SH EET AS ON 31.03.2008. AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) FOR ATTRACTING THE SAID ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 8 -: SECTION, IT WAS NECESSARY THAT AMOUNTS WERE CREDITE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ASSES SEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AS PER LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY VIRTUE OF JUDGMENT OF HONB LE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHIV SHAKTI TIMBERS 229 ITR 505 AN ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE MADE. FURTHER AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COR RESPONDING ASSETS AGAINST THE CAPITAL SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WE RE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS AND THEREFORE SUCH C APITAL WAS NOT INTRODUCED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO TH E IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. AGAIN, AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THERE WAS NO VARIATION IN THE MOVABLE ASS ETS ON COMPARING THE ORIGINAL AND REVISED BALANCE SHEETS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONLY DIFFERENCE AS PER LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WAS DUE TO EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ASSETS W HICH WERE NOT USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER BUSINESS. FURTHER, ACCO RDING TO LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF A45,20,000/- WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, FROM THE VERY SAME AGRICU LTURAL PROPERTY. CONCLUSION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE OVERLOOKED AGRICULTURAL INCOME THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 9 -: ASSESSMENT YEARS. HE HELD THAT ADDITION OF A88,15 ,391/- WAS NOT WARRANTED AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 10. NOW BEFORE US, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) FELL IN ERROR IN ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PE R LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAVING FOUND THAT THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2008, ORIG INALLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, SUBSTANTIALLY VARIED FROM THE REVISED BAL ANCE SHEET FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE HIM, OUGHT NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THE LATTER. AS PER LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAVI NG FILED A BALANCE SHEET WHICH CLEARLY REFLECTED AN OPENING CAPITAL BA LANCE AND CURRENT YEAR PROFIT, ASSESSEE COULD NOT SAY THAT THERE WAS NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY HER. EVEN OTHERWISE AS PER L D. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AN ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED T O SHOW ANY AMOUNT AS CAPITAL AND SAY THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE. 11. PER CONTRA, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRON GLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) SUBMITTED THAT CAPITAL WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER FOR ADDITION WAS REPRESENTED BY ASSETS ACQUIRED LONG BACK. ASSESSEE HAD NOT INTRODU CED ANY SUCH ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 10 -: CAPITAL DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. AS PER L D. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED EVIDENCE TO S HOW OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND AND SUCH EVIDENCE INCLUDED CERTIFICATES IS SUED BY THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND TAHSILDAR. IN ANY CAS E AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HA VING ACCEPTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF A45,20,000/- RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, COULD NOT HAVE PRESUMED T HAT SHE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD ANY SUCH INCOME IN THE PRECEDING YEARS . 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE REMAND REPORT OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY US IN PARA 8 ABOVE. CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SHE HAD ENTERED INTO LEASE /S ALE AGREEMENTS WITH FOUR PERSONS. HOWEVER, NONE OF THESE WERE REGISTE RED DOCUMENTS. THOUGH ASSESSEE FILED A CONSOLIDATED REVISED STATE MENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.03.2008, SHE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED AGAINST T HE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL SHOWN BY HER. UNLESS AND UNTIL THIS WAS PR ODUCED, IN OUR OPINION A CONCLUSION CANNOT BE DRAWN AS TO THE YE AR IN WHICH THE CAPITAL WAS INTRODUCED. ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT PROD UCE FOR EXAMINATION ANY OF THE FOUR PERSONS WITH WHOM SHE C LAIMED TO HAVE ENTERED INTO LEASE AGREEMENT. ATLEAST, A FEW OF SU CH PERSONS HAD ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 11 -: STATED THEY HAD NOT LEASED ANY PROPERTY TO THE ASSE SSEE, WHEN CONTACTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS. NEVERTHELESS , IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED CERTIFICATE FROM VILLAG E ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER WHICH INTERALIA HAD STATED THAT SHE HAD TAK EN CARDAMOM LAND IN SURVEY NOS. 917/1,2, 699, 700, 701, 702, 703 KOT TAGUDI VILLAGE, BODINAICKANUR TALUK, THENI DIST ON PERPETUAL LEASE AND SALE AGREEMENT. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT SHE WAS CULT IVATING CARDAMOM SINCE 1999 IN THE SAID LAND. ALSO AVAILABLE ON REC ORD IS A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TEHSILDAR, WHICH MENTIONS THAT AREAS COVERED IN SURVEY NOS.917/1 AND 917/2 WAS 41.98 ACRE AND AREAS COVERE D IN SURVEY NOS. 699 TO 703 WAS 51.18 ACRE. HOWEVER, THIS CERTIFICA TE SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THE FORMER OWNED BY SHRI. SUNDARARAJ AND FAMI LY AND LATTER WAS OWNED BY SAC SUBRAMANIARAJA. 13. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD TA KEN A VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAVING NOT INTRODUCED MONEY IN ITS BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS, SECTION 68 OF THE ACT COULD NOT ATTRACTED. HOWEVER , BY ASSESSEES OWN ADMISSION THE CAPITAL WAS REPRESENTED BY BUILDING, PLANT AND MACHINERY. HENCE, IT CAN ALSO BE A CASE OF UNEXPLA INED EXPENDITURE. FURTHER, HOW THE ASSESSEE EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOM E OF A45,20,000/- DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ALSO AN ASPE CT WHICH REQUIRED ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 12 -: A VERIFICATION AND WHICH OBVIOUSLY MISSED THE EYES OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASPECTS, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT MATTER REQUIRES A FRESH LOOK BY THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND R EMIT THE ISSUE REGARDING SOURCE OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THE ASSES SEE AND EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCOR DANCE WITH LAW. 15. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-2010. GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THA T LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD SUSTAINED AN ADDITION O F A8,45,200/- OUT OF A TOTAL ADDITION OF A 16,45,200/- MADE BY THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES DISBEL IEVING THE AGRICULTURAL CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 16. ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF A68 ,45,200/-. WHEN ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME , SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS CULTIVATING CARDAMOM IN LEASEHOLD LANDS JUS T AS DONE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. LD. ASSESSING O FFICER ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT A52,00,000/-. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE HAD ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 13 -: NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR AGRICULTURAL E XPENDITURE AND INCOME. AN ADDITION OF A16,45,200/- BEING THE DIFF ERENCE WAS MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 17. IN HER APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT SHE W AS HOLDING 52 ACRES OF LAND AT BODINAICKANUR FROM WHICH SHE EARNE D A54,00,000/- AND 112 ACRES OF LAND IN THENI ALONGWITH WITH HER HUSBAND, FROM WHERE SHE EARNED A14,45,000/-. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT TAHSILDAR OF BODI NACIKANUR HAVING CERTIFIED THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT A52,00,000/- F ROM BODINAICKANUR LAND, THE CLAIM TO THAT EXTENT COULD BE ALLOWED. IN SO FAR AS, INCOME EARNED FROM THENI LANDS WAS CONCERNED, LD. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SAID INCOM E WAS THAT OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND THE BASIS ON THIS SUCH INC OME WAS APPORTIONED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEES HUSBAND WAS NOT KNOWN. HOWEVER, HE HELD THAT ASSESSEE COULD HAVE EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF A60,00,000/- THEREBY GIVING A RELIEF OF A8,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION OF A16,4 5,200/- WAS SCALED DOWN TO A8,45,200/-. 18. NOW BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 14 -: SUBMITTED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION IN TANTO. ACCORDING TO H IM, CONSIDERING THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE, THE INCOME OF A68,45,200/- RETURNED BY HER WAS ON THE LOWER SIDE. 19. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ST RONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WITH RESPECT TO D EPARTMENT APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHERE ONE OF THE QUESTION WHICH AROSE WAS THAT GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF HOLDING OF AGRICU LTURAL LAND, WE HAVE ALREADY REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY, F OR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO THE QUESTION REGARDING EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND QUANTUM THEREOF REQUIRES A FRESH LOOK BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. UNLESS ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THE HOLDING OF LAND BY HER, THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF EARNING ANY AGRICULTURAL INCO ME. ESPECIALLY SO WHEN NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED AND NO S UPPORTING EVIDENCE WERE PRODUCED FOR THE EXPENDITURE INCURRE D ON AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NOS.46/13 & 1399/16. :- 15 -: FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND ASSESS EE FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY , 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) % !& / JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ' !& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ,' / CHENNAI - / DATED:6TH JANUARY, 2017 KV . % !(/0 10 ( / COPY TO: 1 . #$ / APPELLANT 3. 2( () / CIT(A) 5. 056 !(7 / DR 2. !' #$ / RESPONDENT 4. 2( / CIT 6. 68 9' / GF