SHRI DHARMENDRA TIWARI, Bhopal V. The DCIT 1(2), Bhopal

ITA 585/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 58522714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PTQ
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH JAIN CA SHRI R A VERMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE (SINGLE MEMBER CASE) BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 585/IND/2014 A.Y. : 2008-09 SHRI DHARMENDRA TIWARI, DY. CIT, 1(2), BHOPAL VS. BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. ABYPT2507Q A PPELLANT S BY : SHRI PRAKASH JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, DR O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, DATED 26.06.2014 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THIS APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY TWO DAYS. THE BRIEF F ACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER. TO THIS EFFECT, THE ASSES SEE FILED AN DATE OF HEARING : 10 .12. 2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 . 1 2 .2015 SHRI DHARMENDRA TIWARI, BHOPAL VS. DY. CIT ,1(2), B HOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 585/IND/2014 A.Y.2008-09. 2 2 AFFIDAVIT STATING ON OATH THAT HE RECEIVED ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL ON 10.07.2014, AND THE APPEAL WAS TO BE FILE D BEFORE I.T.A.T. ON 8.9.2014, BUT HE WAS NOT KEEPING GOOD H EALTH AND WAS SUFFERING FROM VIRAL FEVER AND FILED THE APPEAL ON 10.09.2014 AND THE DELAY OF TWO DAYS OCCURRED. HE P RAYED THAT THE DELAY OF TWO DAYS MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED. 3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN IN BY THE ASSESSEE SHRI DHARMENDRA TIWARI. I FIND THAT HE WA S SICK AND SUFFERING FROM VIRAL FEVER. I CONDONE THE DELAY OF TWO DAYS AS IT HAS OCCURRED DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL EARNING INCOME OF REMUNERATION AND SHARE OF PROFITS FROM TWO FIRMS, NAMELY M/S. R. D. SHARMA & SONS AND M/S. TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES, WHICH WERE ENGAGED IN SALE AND TRADING OF CROPS. THE AO HAS TRIED TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF AGR ICULTURAL INCOME AND AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT PROVE INCOME OF RS. 4,57,000/- FROM AGRICULTURE. TH EREFORE, IT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI DHARMENDRA TIWARI, BHOPAL VS. DY. CIT ,1(2), B HOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 585/IND/2014 A.Y.2008-09. 3 3 5. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,57,000/- AND RS . 2 LAKHS WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 3.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT SUBM ITTED P-II KHASRA DISCLOSING TOTAL LAND HOLDING OF 8.067 HECTARES I.E. APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES WITH THE HUF, CONSISTING OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS BROTHER. THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIME D THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 RELEVANT TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAD SHOW N PEARL MILLET (BAJRA) IN 7.022 HECTARES, SPLEEN (TILLI) IN 1.05 HECTARES AND GRAM (CHANA) WAS SOWN IN 2.012 HECTARES. THE APPELL ANT HAD ALSO FURNISHED ESTIMATED DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF HUF WHEREIN THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM AGRICULTURAL PRODUC ES WERE SHOWN AT RS. 6,80,002/- AND AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES A T RS. 2,23,167/- SHOWING NET AMOUNT RECEIVED AS AN AGRICU LTURAL INCOME AT RS. 4,56,835/- (R/O RS. 4,57,167/-) IN TH E RETURN. THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AS UNDER :- DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF HUF DATE RECEIPT NO. ITEMS QUANTITY AMOUNT 05.05.07 CHANA 100 1,47,423 31.05.07 SARSO 65 1,75,311 SHRI DHARMENDRA TIWARI, BHOPAL VS. DY. CIT ,1(2), B HOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 585/IND/2014 A.Y.2008-09. 4 4 05.06.07 SARSO 29 90,593 08.11.07 TILLI 72 1,76,832 04.11.07 BAJRA 93 89,843 TOTAL RECEIPT FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY 6,80,002 THE APPELLANT ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF INVOICE OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SHOWING SALE IN KRISHI UPAJ MANDI. FROM THESE FACTS, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THERE WA S AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNE D BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS BROTHER. HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN DISPROPORTIONATELY HIGHER INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED THAT HE HAD SOWN BAJRA, TILLI, SARSO AND CHANA DURING THE YEAR, WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LAND WAS NOT FULLY IRRIGATED BECAUSE IN THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH WHERE THE LAND IS IRRIGATED, SOYABEAN IS SOWN IN KHARIF SEASON AND WHEAT IN RABI SEASON. THE PRODUCTION IN UN- IRRIGATED LAND IS ALWAYS LOWER THAN THE PRODUCTION IN IRRIGATED LAND. IN THE LAND HOLDING OF APPROXIMATEL Y 20 ACRES, ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT TO BE OWNED BY HIM ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER, THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 4,57,000/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO BE RS. 22,850/- P ER ACRE SHRI DHARMENDRA TIWARI, BHOPAL VS. DY. CIT ,1(2), B HOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 585/IND/2014 A.Y.2008-09. 5 5 WHICH WAS ABNORMALLY HIGH. THIS FACT IS FURTHER SUBSTANTIATED WITH THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD CHANA WEIGHING 100 QTLS. WHEREAS THE APPE LLANT HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE SOWN CHANA IN 2.012 HECTARES. T HERE CANNOT BE CHANA CROP WEIGHING 100 QTLS. IN 2.012 HE CTARES. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN THE CASE, IN MY OPINION, IT WOULD BE RE ASONABLE IF AT THE MAXIMUM THE NET INCOME OF RS. 10,000/- PER A CRE PER ANNUM IS ESTIMATED FORM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. SINC E THE APPELLANT ALONGWITH HIS BROTHER OWNED 210 ACRES OF LAND, THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME WORKS OUT AT RS. 2,00,000 /-. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- IS TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT CREDITED BY THE APPELLANT OF RS. 2,57,000/- ( RS. 4,57,000/- - RS. 2,00,000/- IS TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. ACCO RDINGLY, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,57,000/- IS CON FIRMED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IN THE RESULT, THE APPELLANT GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 2,00,000/- IN THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. SHRI DHARMENDRA TIWARI, BHOPAL VS. DY. CIT ,1(2), B HOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 585/IND/2014 A.Y.2008-09. 6 6 7. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF OF RS. 2 LAKHS ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME OF THE LAND IS RS. 22,850/- PER ACR E WHICH IS ABNORMALLY HIGH AND, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES, HE HAS CONSIDERED NET INCOME ON RS. 10,000/- PER AC RE PER ANNUM AND HE HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME OF RS. 2 LAKH S. IN MY OPINION, THAT IS ON LOWER SIDE. THEREFORE, ON ESTIM ATE BASIS, I TREAT RS. 3 LAKHS AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND RS. 1, 57,000/- IS CONFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH DECEMBER, 2015. CPU* SHRI DHARMENDRA TIWARI, BHOPAL VS. DY. CIT ,1(2), B HOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 585/IND/2014 A.Y.2008-09. 7 7