Smt. P.A. Vedavathi, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 585/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2060 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V S SREELEKHA
• Assessee Lawyers: G S SRIRAM
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.585/BANG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SMT. P.A. VEDAVATHI, NO.229, 6 TH CROSS, 3 RD MAIN, MICO LAYOUT, BTM II STAGE, BANGALORE. : APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), BANGALORE. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.S. SRIRAM RESPONDENT BY : SMT. V.S. SREELEKHA O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-V, BANGALORE, FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ELEVEN EXHAUSTIVE GROUND S WHICH ARE IN THE FORM OF ILLUSTRATIVE AND NARRATIVE. HOWEVER, T HE CRUX OF THE ISSUE, IN A NUT-SHELL, IS THAT ITA NO.585/BANG/09 PAGE 2 OF 6 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE, INSTEAD OF APPRECIATI NG THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.2,45,700/-, TRE ATED IT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHE N THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FO R THE ALLEGED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2.45 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A LETTER ENCLOSING THE RR FOR HOLDING 8.5 ACRES OF COFFEE ES TATE JOINTLY WITH HER HUSBAND AND SON. THE SHARES WERE NOT DETERMINABLE AND FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN HER ROI WAS T HE GROSS AND THE NET INCOME WAS ONLY RS.85000/-. YET AN ANOTHER LETTER DT.13.11.07, IT WAS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT SHE WAS OWNING 10.39 ACRES OF COFFEE ESTATE IN KODAGU DISTRICT AND ALSO FURNISHED THE ADDRESSES O F THE FIRMS WHO ALLEGED TO HAVE BOUGHT THE COFFEE SEEDS FROM HER. IN COMPL IANCE TO THE INFORMATION SOUGHT FOR U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE FIRMS HAVE IN FORMED THE AO THAT THEY HAVE NOT BOUGHT ANY COFFEE SEEDS FROM THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IN HER LETTER DT.5.12.2007 CAME UP WITH AN OTHER STORY THAT THE COFFEE PRODUCE WAS SOLD THROUGH HER BROTHER P C K UMAR TO ONE TORRY WHO WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CURING WORKS AND THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.2.39 LAKHS WAS CREDITED TO THE JOINT [ASSESSEE A ND HER HUSBAND] S.B.ACCOUNT IN VIJAYA BANK. 3.1. HOWEVER, THE AO TOOK A STAND THAT, 3.3..I FIND THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO REPLY TO THIS EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE EVIDENCE NEITHER CAN BE ACCEPTED NOR REJECTED FOR LACK OF TI ME AND THUS TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.2.45 LAKHS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ITA NO.585/BANG/09 PAGE 3 OF 6 4. ON AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS CONTENDED MORE OR LESS WHAT WAS URGED BEFORE THE AO. WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS COFFEE ESTATE, THE CIT(A) WENT ON TO OBSERVE THAT - 6..THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH REQUIRES CONSIDERATIO N IS WHETHER THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2.39,250 CREDITED TO THE S.B.A/C OF THE APPELLANT ON 28.4.05 MAY BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS SHOWN IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY2005-06 (31 .3.05). IN THIS REGARD, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE APPELLANT HA S STATED THAT THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS RS.85000 AND NOT RS.245 700 AS SHOWN IN THE RETURN. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHY THE APPELLANT H AS SHOWN THE GROSS INSTEAD OF THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NO PROPE R CLARIFICATION WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENT COULD BE PRODUCED TO ACCEP T THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SUBMISSION. THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN RS.245700 WHEREAS SHRI P.C.KUMAR STATED THAT RS.239250 WAS CR EDITED IN HER ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF COFFEE. THERE IS A DI FFERENCE OF RS.6450. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD A NY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS.239250 DT:28.4.05 WAS T HE SALE PROCEEDS OF COFFEE DURING THE FY 2004-5. IN VIEW OF THIS FA CT, THE VIEW OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME AND THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS FOR THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CORRECT AND AS PER LAW. WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN INCOME AND C OULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE PROPERLY, THE AO HAS NO OTHER OP TION THAN TO TREAT SUCH INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. TH EREFORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE FINDINGS AND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO NEED NO INTERFERENCE. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRE SENT APPEAL. THE LD. ARS REITERATION WAS REVOLVED AROUND WHAT WAS U RGED BEFORE THE CIT(A). FURTHERANCE TO HIS ARGUMENT, HE HAD FURNIS HED A PAPER BOOK WHICH CONTAINED AMONG OTHERS, COPIES OF PARTITION DEED, R ECORD OF RIGHTS, BANK STATEMENT ETC. 5.1. STRONGLY REFUTING THE ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSE E, THE LD. D R CAME UP WITH A SPIRITED ARGUMENT THAT THE STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ITA NO.585/BANG/09 PAGE 4 OF 6 CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY HIG HLIGHTED BY THE CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE STAND OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BE SUSTAINED. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND THE DOCUMENTS PROD UCED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 6.1. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE EVIDENCE NEITHER CAN BE ACCEPTED NOR REJECTED FOR LACK OF TIME IS LACKING CONVICTION. THIS KIND OF SLIP SHOD ASSESSM ENT ORDER, PUT IT MILDLY, DOESNT BRING ANY FAIRNESS TO THE DEPARTMENT EITHER . ON HER PART, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT DISCHARGED HER ONUS FULLY, IN STEAD, WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT, THE PARTICULARS WERE INCOMPLETE, IN- COHESIVE AND THAT TOO FURNISHED IN PIECE MEAL. 6.2. TURNING BACK TO THE ISSUE ON HAND, ON CLOSE SC RUTINY OF THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT (I) THE ASSESSEE HAD INHERITED SOME EXTENT OF COFFEE ES TATE FROM HER FATHER FOR WHICH SHE HAS NOW ONLY PRODUCED COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED; (II) RECORDS OF RIGHTS SHOWING THE ASSESSEE OWNS COFFEE ESTATE; (III) JAMABANDI OF WET AND DRY COFFEE ETC., ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT OF IBBANIVALAVADI VILLAGE. [ THIS PIECE OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT ALLEGED TO HAVE FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES]; (IV) THE ASSESSEE OWNS 1/3 RD SHARE OF 8.5 ACRES OF COFFEE ESTATE SITUATED AT SY.NO.195 OF KARNANGERI VILLAGE OF MADI KERE TALUK; (V) FROM THE PURCHASE BILL DATED: 27.3.2005, THE ASSESS EE ALLEGED TO HAVE SOLD COFFEE SEEDS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24150 0/- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN JOINT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN VIJAYA BANK - ITA NO.585/BANG/09 PAGE 5 OF 6 RS.239250/- ON 28.4.05 [AFTER MEETING THE TRANSPORT ATION CHARGES]. - THE SALE PROCEEDS OF COFFEE SEEDS YIELD FROM THE CO FFEE ESTATE (10.4 ACRES) INHERITED FROM HER FATHER. THI S HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE FOR THE AY UNDER DISPUTE; (VI) THERE WAS AN ENTRY ON 16.5.2005 OF RS.2,75,000/- (REMITTED IN CASH) IN THE BANK PASS BOOK WHICH WAS ATTRIBUTED AS SALE PROCEEDS OF COFFEE SEEDS YIELD FROM SY.NO.195/7 OF KARNANGERI VILLAGE JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE, HER HUSBAND AND SON . HOWEVER, THE PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF SALE PROCEEDS TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DIVULGED IN T HE ROI . THIS ISSUE WILL HAVE TO BE LOOKED INTO. 6.3. AS THE ISSUES REFERRED SUPRA REQUIRE TO BE LOO KED INTO COMPREHENSIVELY, WE ARE OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK ON THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSI DERATION. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO LOOK INTO THE ISSUE WITH REFERENCE TO T HE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH WILL BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT . IN THE MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH HER LD. COUNSEL, IS ADVISED TO FU RNISH ALL RELEVANT PARTICULARS AT HER POSSESSION BEFORE THE AO WHICH W OULD FACILITATE HIM TO CARRY OUT THE DIRECTIONS MENTIONED ABOVE EXPEDITIOU SLY. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.585/BANG/09 PAGE 6 OF 6 PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K. ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 18 TH DECEMBER, 2009. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.