SUNIL APPASAHEB TONDE (HUF), MUMBAI V. ITO WD 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4982/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 55614 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL K HAKANI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 6

Judgement Text

1 SHRI SUNIL APPASAHEB TONDE(HUF) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI H BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIJ SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL R AO, JM ITA NO. 4982/MUM/2010 (ASST YEAR 2004-05 ) SHRI SUNIL APPASAHEB TONDE(HUF) SAIBABA NAGAR CHAWL NO.2 ROOM NO.7 NETIVALLI VILLAGE KALYAN (E) 421 306 VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2), KALYAN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABHT 3414J ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAHUL K HAKANI REVENUE BY SGHRI V V SHASTRI DT.OF HEARING 11.10.2011 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19. 10.2011 PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.1.2010 OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE AY 2004-05. 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL: I)THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AND RETAIN THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,60,000 UNDER SEC 68 OF THE I T ACT, BEING THE GENUINE AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. II) THE LD CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPE LLANT HAD SUBMITTED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AGREEMENT WITH 7/12 TH EXTRACT AND ALSO SUBMITTED THE SALES BILL OF CROPS CULTIVATED AND SOLS DURING THE YEAR. TREATING THE SAME AS OTHER INCOME U/S 68 OF I T ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HENCE, A DDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED. 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 4,60,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, COPIES OF SALE BILL OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE; INFORMATION REG ARDING CULTIVATION OF LAND , NATURE OF CROP CULTIVATED, CULTIVATED YIELD, DETAILS OF SEEDS PURCHASED WITH DOCUMENTARY 2 SHRI SUNIL APPASAHEB TONDE(HUF) EVIDENCE, FERTILIZERS PURCHASED WITH PROOF, LABOUR CHARGES PAID WITH PROOF, ELECTRICITY BILL DETAILS ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE LAND VIDE PURCHASE DEEDS DATED 16.8.2003, 6.10.2003 AND 13.10.2003 WHEREIN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SHOWN AS UN-IRRIGATED LANDS A ND NOT PROVIDED WITH ANY WATER FACILITY AS NONE OF THE AGREEMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND SHOWS ANY WATER FACILITY ON THESE LANDS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTED THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LA NDS IN THE MONTHS OF AUG 2003 AND OCT 2003 AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER WITHIN A SP AN OF 2 TO 6 MONTHS, HE HAS RECEIVED RS. 4,60,123/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRIC ULTURAL PRODUCES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXPRESSED HIS DOUBT AS TO HOW SUCH HUGE INCOME CAN BE EARNED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 TO 6 MONTHS TIME BY AGR ICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,60,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE I T ACT. 4 ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) MADE AN ESTIMATE OF AGRICUL TURAL INCOME @ 10,000/- PER ACRE TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 LACS IN RESPECT O F 20 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,60,000/- AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE RELEVANT RECORDS IN THE SHAPE OF VOUCH ERS FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND COPY OF 7/12 EXTRACT (REVENUE RECORD). HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED A CONFIRMATION LETTER OF M/S SREENATH TRADERS (NAIGOKAR) TO WHOM THE AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE WAS SOLD. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS OWN BY PROVING THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED AGRICULTURAL LANDS ADMEASURING 20 ACRES AND CULTIVATED THE SAME. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME SHOWING THE INCOME 3 SHRI SUNIL APPASAHEB TONDE(HUF) AND EXPENDITURE ALONG WITH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SAL E BILL. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS HAVING OWN WELL FOR IRRIGATION AND SINCE THE SEASON, DURING WHICH THE CROP WAS GROWN, IS RAINY S EASON AND CULTIVATION CAN BE DONE WITHOUT REQUIREMENT OF WATER FACILITY. HE HAS REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS AS RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS PRODUCED THE EVIDENCES OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. WITH REGARD TO THE EV IDENCE FOR EXPENDITURE ON FERTILIZER AND SEEDS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE BILLS WERE DESTROYED DURING THE FLOOD IN JULY 2005. 5.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS BEYOND IMAGINATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS BY GROWING CORPS ON THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THE ASSESSEE DID N OT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR CULTIVATION OF THE CROP ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CARE FULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 20 A CRES OF LANDS VIDE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS DATED 16.8.2002, 6.10.2003 AND 13.10 200 3; THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 20 ACR ES BUT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE MONTH OF AUG 2003 AND OCT 2003. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE SOL D THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE VIDE BILLS DATED 20.11.2003; 25.12.2003 AND 20.1.2004 AN D 10.2. 2004. IT IS QUITE STRANGE THAT HOW WITHIN SUCH SHORT SPAN OF PERIOD, THE A SSESSEE WAS ABLE TO GET THE YIELD OF CROPS AND EVEN SOLD THE SAME. THEREFORE, WE DO SHAR E THE DOUBT RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED IRRIGATION FACILITY IN THE LAN DS BUT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD AND PARTICULARLY IN THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT ABOUT ANY IR RIGATION FACILITY ON THE LAND IN 4 SHRI SUNIL APPASAHEB TONDE(HUF) QUESTION. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS GROSS LY FAILED TO EVEN BRING ON RECORD ANY ELECTRICITY CONNECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF IRRIG ATION AS WELL AS ANY EXPENDITURE ON ELECTRICITY CHARGES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALS O NOT PRODUCED ANY RECORD REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. ONE MORE ASPECT WHICH IS VERY PERTINENT TO NOTE IS THAT THE PURCHASED CONSIDERATION OF 20 ACRES OF LAND AT ABOUT RS. 12 LACS WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THAT QUALITY AND FERTILITY OF LAND. EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE LAND IS A FER TILE LAND THEN THE YIELD OF A QUARTER AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE GIVES UNHEARD AND UNBELIEVA BLE RETURN FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY FROM ORDINARY CROPS AND THE ENTIRE INVESTM ENT IN LANDS IS RECOVERED WITHIN A YEAR. 7 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A; ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS U PHELD. 8 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 19 TH , DAY OF OCT 2011. SD/- SD/- ( J SUDHAKAR REDDY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 19 TH , OCT 2011 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI