The Income-tax Officer, Amritsar. V. Sh. Sukhdev Singh, S/o. Sh. Teja Singh, Amritsar.

ITA 611/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 61120914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R L CHHANALIA
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Section: 69; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 611(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 PAN :ADTPA9064E THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. S. SUKHDEV SINGH WARD 3(4), AMRITSAR, S.TEJA SINGH, AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. R.L. CHHANALIA, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. P.N.ARORA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING:06/09/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:11/09/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES FROM THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 02.09.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,42,960/- MADE BY THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVI SION OF SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR ASSESSES FAILURE TO SATISFACTORY EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENT MADE IN PURCHAS E OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN HIS NAME AND IN THE NAME OF H IS SONS. ITA NO.611(ASR)/2011 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ENTIRE INV ESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS BEEN MADE IN CASH WHICH APPEA RS TO BE INCREDIBLE IN VIEW OF ASSESSEES HAVING MAINTAINED BANK ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB & SIND BANK, KOT MANGAL SINGH, AMRITSAR. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,30,080/- CONVERTED INTO INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES OUT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.8,40,080/- SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AGRICULTURAL INC OME OF RS.5,10,000/- HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AFTER V ERIFICATION OF FORM(J) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.21,22,130/- FOR THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE L AND IN DIFFERENT NAMES. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 HAS FILE D RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME FROM DAMI UNDER THE HEAD BUSINES S INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.48,527/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.8,40,080/-. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON 27.11.200 8 IN WHICH HE HAS STATED THAT HE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND IS ALSO DOING BUSIN ESS OF KACHHI AARHAT AT MANDI BHAGTANWALA AT AMRITSAR AND ALSO AT VILLAGE C HOGAWA AND IS FILING HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 -05 ONWARDS. IN THE STATEMENT, HE STATED THAT HE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND IN HIS NAME AND IN THE NAMES OF HIS SONS AND HIS WIFE. THE SOURCE OF INVES TMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND ITA NO.611(ASR)/2011 3 HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO BE FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AS REGARDS THE RETURN, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS NOT FILED BECAUSE I NCOME FROM OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT TAXABLE. THE ASSESSEE F URNISHED REPLY DATED 01.12.2008 IN WHICH HE STATED THAT HE HAS PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.4,50,000/- DURING THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, RS.11,00582/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AN D RS.8,40,080/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. COPIES OF J FORMS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 WERE FURNISHED. FURTHER REPLY A ND EXPLANATION DATED 12.12.2008 WAS SUBMITTED EXPLAINING THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.21,80,300/- TREATING THE SAID INVEST MENT AS UNEXPLAINED UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. ALSO KEEPING IN VIEW THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO ALLOWED RS.5,10,000/- AS AGRICULTU RAL INCOME @ RS.20,000/- PER ACRE FOR 25.5 ACRES POSSESSED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED RS.3,30,080/- TREATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME CLAIM ED AS INCOME FROM OTHER UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE AVERAGE RATE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME @ RS.32,000/- PER ACRE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE INVESTMENT MADE BY SMT. JABIR KAUR WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF ITA NO.611(ASR)/2011 4 RS.16,42,960/- AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,7 9,120/. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME APPLYI NG AVERAGE SALE RATE OF RS.32000/- PER ACRE. 4. THE LD. DR, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. P.N. ARORA , ADVOCATE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO AND HAS ALSO STATED IN TH E PERSONAL EXAMINATION BEFORE THE AO ABOUT THE SOURCES OF THE INVESTMENT B EING MADE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED COP IES OF J FORMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) . NO DEFECT IN THE SAME HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF 25.5 ACR ES OF LAND AND IT IS A MATTER OF ESTIMATION BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW I.E. AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) THAT A PARTICULAR LAND CAN FETCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS .20,000/- OR RS.32,000/-. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO FO R FIXING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.20,000/- PER ANNUM. IN FA CT, NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO OR NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE ITA NO.611(ASR)/2011 5 LD. CIT(A). BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WITH REGARD TO SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.4,79,12 0/-, WE HAVE NOT ALTERNATIVE BUT NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION AS PER HIS ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THAT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCO ME . THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I N ITA NO.611(ASR)/2011 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. SUKHDEV SINGH, AMRITSAR 2. THE ITO WAD 3(4), ASR. 3. THE CIT(A), ASR. 4. THE CIT ASR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.