Dharam Pal Singh Negi, New Delhi V. ACIT Circle-64(1), New Delhi

ITA 4900/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2933 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4900/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Dharam Pal Singh Negi, 2404, C-II Block, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. PAN-AEQPN4363H vs ACIT, Circle-64(1), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 19.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 26.09.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013- 14 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-32, New Delhi dated 29.03.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 250(6) was incorrect, bad in law and void ab initio. 2. Whether the Ld CIT (A) was justified in law and facts in upholding the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,27,947/- under the head salary. 3. Whether Ld. CIT (A) was justified in law and facts in upholding the addition made by the AO of Rs. 41,152/- under the head income from other sources under interest head. 4. Whether Ld. CIT (A) was justified in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- against the addition made by the AO of Rs. 21,00,000/- under the head agricultural income from other sources. Page | 2 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the above grounds during the pendency of the appeal.” 2. At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the records that there is no representation on behalf of the assessee since 08.02.2021. Notice of hearing sent through speed post is returned back with acknowledgement. Therefore, it is construed that the notice of hearing was duly served upon the assessee. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and being disposed off on the basis of material available on record. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Thereby, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) pointed out that there were certain discrepancies in respect of the claim of the assessee. As per Form No.26AS, the receipt of salary was of Rs.10,23,401/- and the assessee declared income from salary at Rs.9,00,450/-. Hence, the AO made addition of Rs.1,27,947/- in respect of salary income. Further, the AO made addition of Rs.1,50,000/- in respect of the claim of the “income from house property” and “income from other sources” amounting to Rs.41,152/-. Apart from this, the assessee had claimed agricultural income of Rs.21,00,000/- which was not found supported with the requisite evidences. Thus, the AO assessed the income at Rs.32,14,553/- against the total income of Rs.9,00,450/-. Page | 3 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, Ld.CIT(A) accepted all earnings from agricultural income to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is general in nature, needs no separate adjudication. 7. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is against the sustaining of addition of Rs.1,27,947/-. 8. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that before Ld.CIT(A), this ground was not pressed by the assessee. 9. I have heard Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is seen from the impugned order that Ld.CIT(A) has given a finding in para 6.3 that Ground No.2 pertains to addition of Rs.1,27,947/- under the head “Salary”. The assessee has not pressed this ground of appeal. The assessee has not rebutted this finding by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A), the same is hereby affirmed. Hence, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 10. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is against the upholding of addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.41,152/-. Page | 4 11. Ld. Sr. DR pointed out that this ground was not pressed before Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee cannot raise this ground before this Tribunal. 12. I have heard Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that Ld.CIT(A) in Para 6.5 of impugned order, has stated that Ground No.3 relates to disallowance of Rs.41,152/- under the head “income from other sources”. The assessee has not pressed this ground of appeal. The assessee has not rebutted this finding by placing any contrary material on record. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A), the same is hereby affirmed. Hence, Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 13. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is against the upholding of addition of Rs.16,00,000/- in respect of declining the claim of agricultural income. 14. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not provide any evidences in support of his claim of earning of agricultural income. 15. I have heard Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that Ld.CIT(A) has given a finding on facts by observing as under:- 6.6.1. “AO states in the assessment order that appellant has declared net agricultural income of Rs.21 Lacs. Therefore, appellant is not explaining how he has declared Rs.21 lacs as net agricultural, in fact, the contention of AQ has not * been controverted. Appellant has filed an affidavit of Sh. Jaiwant Kumar in which it has been claimed that he has handled land of appellant and appellant in his rejoinder to remand report has stated that Page | 5 cash of Rs.5,00,604/- was deposited in bank account of Jaiwant Kumar. It is apparent that amount of sale price of apple was Rs.5,00,604/- only if the contention of appellant is accepted that sale proceed of apple was deposited in the account of Sh. Jaiwant Kumar. Apart from this, there is no evidence to establish that appellant earned Rs.21,00,000/- on account of sale of apple. Moreover, affidavit of Sh. Jaiwant Kumar does not help the case of appellant as appellant has only explained income of Rs.8,00,000/- even after adjusting the payment to Sh. Jaiwant Kumar and expenses incurred. It is also to be noted that payment to Sh. Jaiwant Kumar is diversion of appellant’s income and as such, he is not entitled to claim the benefit on account of payment to Sh. Jaiwant Kumar. Appellant has filed a bill for purchase of fertilizer and pesticides of Rs.3,89,750/-. Further, from the perusal of Statement of Immovable Property Return of appellant for the year as on 12.01.2014, it is seen that appellant owns 30 acres of ancestral agricultural land and has shown income from agricultural land at Rs.6 lacs. Therefore, it is apparent that appellant owns agricultural land. From the perusal of the details filed it is apparent that appellant is having apple farm and is earning agricultural income out of that. There is also some basis in the contention that bills & vouchers could not be maintained by appellant being a salaried employee. However, at the same time, onus is on the appellant to establish the agricultural income declared in his ITR. Therefore, in view of the facts, it is clear that appellant has shown excess agricultural income for which there is no basis or proof. It is also seen that during A.Y. 2012-13, appellant has declared net agricultural income in his ITR of Rs.2,25,000/-. There is no change in the circumstances. However, there is a possibility that there was more agricultural income during the year though no basis has been given by appellant for earning agricultural income of Rs.21 lacs during the year. As a result, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, net agricultural income of appellant is restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, in view of the facts of the case, addition on account of unexplained agricultural income of Rs. 16,00,000/- is sustained and balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is partly allowed.” Page | 6 16. The assessee has not contradicted this finding by placing any contrary material on record even before this Tribunal. The assessee has not placed any evidences in support of his claim regarding earning of the agricultural income. Therefore, in the absence of any such material, I do not see any reason to disturb the finding of Ld. CIT(A), the same is hereby affirmed. Thus, Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26 th September, 2022. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI