Shri Bhuralal Kanjibhai, L/R of Late Shri Kanjibhai Jadavjibhai, Jetpur V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 570/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2021 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH KUMAR
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. H.. B, . . , BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI D. K. SRIVASTAVA, AM IT A N O . 570 /RJT/20 1 2 . JI I / ASSESSMENT YEAR - 200 3 - 04 SHRI KANJIBHAI JADAVJIBHAI NEAR GEB OFFICE, TEEN BATT CHOWK, JETPUR PAN: ADQPRS5739J ( / APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), RAJKOT . R / RESPONDENT JI /AS SESSEE BY NONE S / REVENUE BY SHRI. AVINASH KUMAR /DATE OF HEARING 6 .2. 2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8.2.2013 / ORDER H.. B, / T. K. SHARMA, J. M THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2 3.8. 201 0 OF THE LD.CIT(A) - II, RAJKOT F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3 - 04 . 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR HEARING ON 24.1.2013. ON THAT DATE, AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 6.2.2013. ON THE ADJOURNED DATE OF HEARING ALSO NEITHER ANYBODY PRESENT FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IS RECEIVED, THEREFORE, WE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THE ITA NO.570/RJT/2012. 2 APPEAL EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LD.DR AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER : (I) THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER; (II) THE LD. AO ERRED IN HOLDING THE GENUINE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE SAME BE HELD AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME; (III) THE GROUNDS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE INCO ME HAS BEEN HELD NOT TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND LEGALLY UNTENABLE AND THE INCOME OF RS.1 , 77 , 755/ - OU GHT TO BE HELD AS AGRICULTURE INCOME IV) THE LD. AO AND T HE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD PROCEEDED ON ERRONEOUS PRESUMPTION AND P REMISES WHILE MAKING THE DECISION IN THIS REGARD. V) THAT THE OWNERS OF THE LAND , WHO HAD GIVEN THEIR LAND FOR THE CULTIVATION TO THE DECEASED APPELLANT HAVING FILED THEIR CONFIRM ATIONS IN THIS R EGARD IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE SAME OU GHT NOT TO BE BRUSHED ASIDE AS DONE BY THE LD.AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). VI) THE LD. AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, THE APPELLANT WAS DECEASED AND THE L/R SHRI BHURALAL WHO WAS NOT AWARE WITH THE AFFAIRS OF THE DECEASED APPELLANT, HANDLED THE MATTER. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, HE FILED RETURN OF INCOM E ON 31.1.2 0 05 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7 5, 210/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.2 , 13 , 624/ - . THE AO CONDUCTED NECESSARY INQUIRIES REGARDING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ESTIMATED THE ITA NO.570/RJT/2012. 3 AGRICULTURE I NCOME AT RS. 46,664/ - ONLY AND TREATED THE R EST OF THE ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME I.E RS.1 , 66 , 960/ - A S UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND BROUGHT IN THE BOOKS UNDER THE GUISE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO GIVE COLOUR TO THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 5 . ON APPEAL, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH 6 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER : 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS DISBELIEVED THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF THE APPELLANT CONSIDERING THE LAND HOLDINGS. INITIALLY THE AO HAS ASKED FOR DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY FILED COPIES OF REVENUE EXTRACT OF THE 7/12 AND 8A AS WELL AS SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. NO OTHER EVIDENCES REGARDING CULTIVATION OF LAND OF OTHER FIVE PERSONS WERE PRODUCED. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE AO HAS ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 18.12.2005, THE APPELLANT HAS SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT FOR ALMOST THRE E MONTHS REGULARLY AND AT THE FAG END OF THE TIME - BARRING DATE, HE HAS COME OUT WITH THE FA C T THAT LAND OF OTHER 5 PERSONS HAS BEEN TAKEN ON CONTRACT FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WHEREIN ONE OF THE CONDITION WAS THAT ALL THE EXPENSES WOULD BE BORNE BY THE A PPELLANT BY RETAINING 80% OF THE TOTAL CROPS WHICH IS VERY STRANGE . NORMALLY SUCH CONTRACTS ARE CARRIED OUT ON 50/50 BASIS AFTER DEDUCTING THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE PERSON I.E. THE CULTIVATOR OR LAND OWNER. HERE THE FACT THAT 80% BEING RETAINED BY T HE APPELLANT ITSELF IS UNBELIEVABLE. FURTHER, THE AO HAS ALSO RIGHTLY NOTED THAT WHEN THE APPELLANT IS CLAIMING CULTIVATION ON OTHERS LAND, HE IS BOUND TO PRODUCE NECESSARY COGENT EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD WHICH IS VERIFIABLE INDEPENDENTLY. WHEN ANY ASSESS E CLAIMS ANY PART OF HIS INCOME AS EXEMPT, IT IS HIS DUTY TO SUBSTANTIATE IT WITH NECESSARY COMPLETE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF M/S GOPIRAM LEELA V/S CIT (RAJ) 225 ITR 320 AND RIDHKARANDAS POONAMCHAND BURA V/S CIT (MP) 231 I TR 604. HERE THE MOOT QUESTION RAISED BY THE AO HAS REMAINED UNANSWERED I.E. WHY THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE FACT OF CULTIVATION OF AG RICULTURAL LAND OF OTHER PERSONS ON CONTRACT AT THE INITIAL STAGED ITSELF? WHY THE APPELLANT DISCLOSED THIS ON LY AFTER ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THAT TOO AFTER ALMOST THREE MONTHS. AS THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THIS EVEN AT THIS ITA NO.570/RJT/2012. 4 STAGE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RE C OR D S, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS UPHELD. THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED 6 . AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL . 7 . SHRI AVINASH KUMAR, THE LD. DR, RELYING ON THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO POINTED OUT THAT NEITHER BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT HE WAS CULTIVATING THE LAND OF OTHER 5 PERSONS. HE ACCORDINGLY POINTED OUT THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THIS FACT ALONE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE UPHELD. 8. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR WE HAVE CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW . IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE A S SES SEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE NECESSARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT HE WAS CULTIVATING THE LAND OF FIVE AGRICULTURIST . EVEN BEFORE US ON TWO OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN COGENT REASON FOR UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,66,960/ - . 9. IN THE RESULT, TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD SD ( .. TS / D. K. SRIVASTAVA) ( .. I / T. K. SHARMA) EVEN / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J S / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ORDER DATE 8. 2. 2013 . /RAJKOT ITA NO.570/RJT/2012. 5 SRL JO EO / COPY OF OR DER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / APPELLANT - . R / RESPONDENT - 3. V / CONCERNED CIT . 4. V - / CIT (A) . 5. RJJ, , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. I / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT.