Jatinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 594/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6134 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Keywords: Wrong claim

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 594 /CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 JATINDER PAL SINGH VS. I.T.O. WARD 1(1) S/O SHRI BALRAJ SINGH LUDHIANA GREWAL HOUSE VILLAGE KANGANWAL P.O JUGIANA DISTT LUDHIANA ASYPS 3556 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J.S. NAGAR DATE OF HEARING 23.4.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.4.2014 O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20. 3.2013 OF THE LD CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1 THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS E RRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS HAVING AGRICULTURAL I NCOME ONLY FROM 12 ACRES OF LAND OWNED BY HIM. (WHICH HAS BEEN WORKED BY THE LD. CIT(A) @ RS. 30,000/- PER ACRE, TOTALING TO RS. 3,60,000/- ) AS PER PARA 3.9 & 3.10 OF HIS ORDER. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME PERTAINING TO 15.57 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND TAKEN BY HIM ON LEASE FROM HIS UNCLE AND AUNT WAS NOT AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT. 3 THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING HIS FI NDING THAT DECLARATION / CERTIFICATE AS PROOF OF HAVING TAKEN AGRICULTURAL LAND ON LEASE FROM HIS UNCLE AND AUNT WAS MERE SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS. 4 THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE A FALSE CLAIM BEFORE THE AO WITH REGARD TO SAL E OF SUGARCANE TO M/S BUDHEWAL CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS, LUDHIANA. 5 NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE WORTHY CIT(A ) HAS ERRED IN TAKING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 12 ACRES OWNE D BY THE APPELLANT @ RS. 30,000/- PER ACRE TOTALING TO RS. 3,60,000/- BY NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CALCULATION OF ESTIMATED NET INCOME FROM 2 AGRICULTURAL OPERATION OF RS. 21,87,000/- OUT OF RS . 27 ACRES (12 ACRES + 15 ACRES) OF LAND CULTIVATED BY HIM BEFORE HIM AS M ENTIONED BY HIM IN PARA 3.2 OF THE ORDER. 6 THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ALSO FAILED TO CONSIDE R THAT THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF ASSESSEE IS ONLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME A ND NO EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER, WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCOME FROM SOME OTHER SOURCES. AS SUCH, THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING ASSESSEES AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER, IS UNCALLED FOR. 3 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR RS. 25352/- PLUS AGR ICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 21,78,395/- WAS DECLARED. VARIOUS NO TICES WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(2) OF INCOM E -TAX ACT, 1961 BUT NONE APPEARED. THEREFORE ASSESSMENT WAS M ADE ON EX-PARTE BASIS. SINCE NO EVIDENCE WAS FOR AGRICULT URAL INCOME WAS FILED WHOLE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4 ON APPEAL VARIOUS DOCUMENTS WERE FILED REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF LAND COPY OF GIRDAWARI ETC. IN RESPECT OF 12 ACRES OF ANCESTRAL LAND WHICH WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT 15.57 ACRES OF LAND WAS ALSO T AKEN FOR PATTA FROM HIS UNCLE, TEJINDER PAL SINGH AND HIS AU NTS, MRS. GURMEET KAUR AND MRS. KARTAR KAUR ON ANNUAL LEASE O F 5,000 PER ACRE. DECLARATION OF THESE PARTIES WERE ALSO F ILED. FURTHER A CERTIFICATE FROM THE BUDHEWAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR M ILLS LTD. LUDHIANA WAS FILED FROM CHIEF MANAGER SUGAR CANE I N WHICH IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SELLING SUGAR CANE TO THE MILL. THE LD. CIT(A) SENT THESE DOCUMENTS FOR REMAND REPO RT AND IT IS CLAIMED BEFORE US THAT THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE LAND WAS TAKEN ON LEASE WERE ALSO PRODUCED. THE LD. CIT(A) ULTIMATELY ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS. 3,60,000 @ 30,000 PER ACRE TO WARDS AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE OTHER CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON LEASE LAND WA S MAINLY 3 REJECTED BECAUSE DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED A LETTER FROM GENERAL MANAGER FROM THE BUDHEWAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILL THAT MILL HAS NO TR ANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. 5 BEFORE US IT WAS MAINLY CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A NON RESIDENT INDIAN AND HAD GONE ABROAD IN THE YEAR 2005 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON EXPARTE BASIS AND I T IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TRACE THE DOCUMENTS FOR SALE OF AGRICUL TURAL PRODUCE ETC. FOR THE OLD PERIOD. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF 12 ACRES OF LAND EVEN THE CLAIM OF LEASE OF LAND OF 15 ACRES HAS NOT BEEN DENIED. AS FAR AS LETTER OF THE BUDHE WAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILL DENYING THE TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE, IS CONCERNED, THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN SOME WHERE IN THE YEAR 2013 BY THAT TIME THE MILL MAY HAVE MISPLA CED EARLIER RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. HE ULTIMATELY PRAYED THAT IN THE FACE OF GENUINE DIFFICULTY BEING FACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLLECTING THE OLD DOCUMENTS, AT LEAST REASONABLE RELIEF MAY BE ALLOWED. 6 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY AND FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED IN PARA 3.8 AS U NDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE FOLLOWING FACT EMERG:- I) THE APPELLANT HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 21,78,395/- II) THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT HE IS THE OWNER OF 12 ACRES OF ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND. III) THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED A COPY OF JAMABAN DI WITH REGARD TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS ANCESTRAL LAND. IV) THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT HE HAD CULTIVATED S UGARCANE ON THIS LAND ALONGWITH SOME VEGETABLES. V) THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A COPY OF GIRDWARI WITH REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CARRIED OUT ON THIS ANCESTRA L LAND. 4 VI) IN ADDITION TO THE 12 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND OWNED BY THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAD TA KEN 15.57 ACRES OF LAND ON LEASE FROM HIS UNCLE SHRI TEJINDER PAL SINGH AND AUNTS SMT. GURMEET KAUR AND SMT. KARTAR KAUR AT AN ANNUAL LEASE OF RS. 5,000/- PER ACRE. VIII) THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A DECLARATION DATED 26.11.2012, SIGNED BY SMT. GURMEET KAUR, SMT. KARTAR KAUR AND TEJINDER PA L SINGH WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF LAND TAKEN ON LEASE FROM THE AFORESAID PERSONS. VIII) DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT THE SUGARCANE GROWN BY HIM WAS SOLD AMONGST OT HER CONCERNS TO M/S BUDHEWAL CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS, LUDHIANA. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT FILED A COPY OF LETTER SIGNED BY CHIEF MANAGER, SUGARCANE, DR. DHALIWAL, CONFIRMING THAT S HRI JATINDER PAL SINGH OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE HAD BEEN SELLING SU GARCANE TO THE M/S BUDHEWAL CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS. IX) THE AO CONDUCTED HIS INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION BY CALLING INFORMATION FROM M/S BUDHEWAL CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MI LLS. THE BUDHEWAL CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS REPORTED THAT AS PER RECORD, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT SUPPLIED SUGARCANE TO THE MIL L DURING THE F/YS 1999-2000, 2000-01 AND 2001-02. COPY OF THE IN FORMATION PROVIDED BY THE SUGAR MILL IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE- A1 TO THIS ORDER. POINTS NO. IV, V, VI & VII OF THE ABOVE PARAS CLEAR LY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTS REGARDING OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS CONFIRMATIONS FOR LEASE LAND. HOWEVER, AT SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING SA LE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. CONSIDERING THE OVERALL CIRC UMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT AT LEASE REASONABLE RELI EF MAY BE GIVEN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT EASY TO T RACE THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION, TO MEET TH E ENDS OF JUSTICE, IF A FURTHER RELIEF OF RS. 15,000 PER ACRE AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,25,000 ON 15 ACRES OF LEASE LAND, IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, SAME WO ULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE A R ELIEF OF RS. 2.25 LAKHS IN ADDITION TO RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LD. C IT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 8 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.4.2014 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (T.R. SOOD ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28.4.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR 5