Ajay Pal Singh, Mohali V. ITO, Mohali

ITA 472/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80959 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: BRIJ BHUSHAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 472/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI AJAY PAL SINGH, VS THE INCOME TA X OFFICER # 2654, SECTOR 69, WARD 6(4), MOHALI. MOHALI. PAN: AUEPK7776K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 27.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.10.2014 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DATED 03.09.2013 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS. 23,04 ,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS AGRICULTURAL INCOME UNDER THE HEA D 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 32 LACS AND IN COME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AT RS. 1,17,500/- IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 29.09.2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND PARTICULARS AND DETAILS OF LAND HOLDING AND COPIES OF FORM-J IN RESPECT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCTS. THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DURING THE YEAR IN QU ESTION, HE 2 WAS PLANNING TO GO ABROAD FOR SOME YOUNG FARMERS PR OGRAMME AND HE APPROACHED TO SOME IMMIGATION CONSULTANTS IN CHANDIGARH AND THEY ASKED HIM ABOUT THE INCOME WHIC H HE DO NOT HAVE OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEN THEY SUGGESTED HIM TO FILE THE ITR WITH HEAVY AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SHOW AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF AROUND RS. 30 LACS. MR. AJA Y PAL SINGH IS HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 8 ACRES IN HIS NAME AND 18 ACRES IN THE NAME OF HIS MOTHER AND 8 ACRES IN THE NAME O F HIS BROTHER. SO, THEY HAVE TOTAL ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL I NCOME OF AROUND RS. 10 LACS TO RS. 12 LACS, OUT OF WHICH MR. AJAY PALS SHARE IS AROUND RS. 3 LACS APPROXIMATELY. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE OWNED 8 ACRES OF AGRI CULTURAL LAND IN HIS OWN NAME AND 8 ACRES IN THE NAME OF HIS BROT HER AND 18 ACRES IN THE NAME OF HIS MOTHER. THE LAND WAS GIVE N ON LEASE @ RS. 32,000/- PER ACRE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT HIGH AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS DEC LARED ON THE ADVICE OF IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HELD THAT IT WAS DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE CORRECT PA RTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OF FICER, TAKING A VIEW MOST FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ON TH E BASIS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF LAND HOLDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, COMPUTED THE AGRICULTURAL I NCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS. 8,96,000/- AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS . 23,04,000/- WAS TREATED AS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES' AND ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE SUMMARIZED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSES SEE 3 STATED THAT HE HAS NOT EARNED SUCH HUGE AGRICULTURA L INCOME DURING THE YEAR AND THAT HIS BANK DEPOSIT WAS OF RS . 3.17 LACS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HAS NOT MADE ANY INV ESTMENT OR INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE AND IT IS NOT A CASE OF BO GUS CAPITAL FORMATION. ADDITION IS MADE MERELY ON SUSPICION. HE HAS RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE CA SE OF SMT. HARJIT KAUR GILL & OTHERS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), H OWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ONUS UPON ASSESSEE HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DI SCHARGED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT WHATEVER IS DEC LARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT CORRECT, THEREFORE, CANNOT TAKE CONTRARY STAND NOW. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EFFECT IS DECLARED IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COUNSELS HAVE NOT PROPERLY ADVISED THE ASSESSEE AT THE STAGE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) A ND MERELY CONTENDED THAT INCOME OF THE FATHER FROM AGRICULTUR AL OPERATION MAY BE CONSIDERED AND BENEFIT TO THAT EFFECT MAY BE GIVEN. SOME COPIES OF THE JAMABANDI OF AGRICULTURAL LAND O WNED BY FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK WITHOUT MAKING ANY REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS EE HAS 4 DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 32 LACS AND ADM ITTED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER AND MOTHER ARE ALSO HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEIR TOTAL INCOM E IS AROUND RS. 10 LACS TO RS. 12 LACS APPROXIMATELY AND THE SH ARE OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS. 3 LACS P.A. IT WOULD, THEREF ORE, SHOW THAT WHATEVER AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, WAS NOT EARNED OUT OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIO N AND WAS, THUS, RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW T O BE 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. THE ONUS UPON ASSESSEE TO PRO VE EARNING OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME THUS, NOT SUBSTANTIATED THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. EVEN BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE REGARDING EARNING OF THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIE D IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OF EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOM E. THE ASSESSEE NEVER PLEADED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW EAR NING OF ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY HIS FATHER. THE ASSESSEE ON ONE HAND PLEADED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW EARNING OF THE LESSER AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HAS NOW TAKEN A CONTRARY ST AND TO ACCEPT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME BY CLAIMING THAT FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THIS FACT IS PLEADED FOR THE FIRST TIME BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THUS, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATI ON. THE ASSESSEE NEVER MADE ANY SUCH CLAIM BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND FURTHER NO PROPER STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN F OR ADMISSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. THEREFORE, WHATEVER PHOTO COPIES OF SOME LAND HOLDI NG HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK, CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN 5 FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFIC ATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH OCTOBER,2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAIN I) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH OCTOBER,2014. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH