G.Ramanlal, Hyderabad V. ITO, Hyderabad

ITA 647/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6617 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DIWAKAR PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER ITA NO.647 &648/HYD/2010 : ASST. YEAR: 2004-05 & 2005-06 G. RAMANLAL, HYDERABAD. (PAN: ACWPG 4404 E) VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DIWAKAR PRASAD O R D E R PER AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A)-VI, HYDERABAD DATED 3-2 -2010 AND THEY PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06. SI NCE COMMON GROUND WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, T HESE ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMBINED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE COMMON ISSUE INVO LVED IN THESE APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 WHICH WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FOUND F ROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 948 TO 951/HYD/2007 DATED 29-8-2008 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERENCE:- ITA NO.647/HYD/201 0 G.RAMANLAL, HYDERABAD . ========================= 2 . 16. WHEREAS, IN THE CASE BEFORE US THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER SRI G. LAKSHMANA RAO DURING THE RELEVANT YEARS, SECONDLY T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN AGRICULTURIST AT THE RELEVANT TI ME, THIRDLY IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM HIS FATHER WHO IS AN AGRICULTUR IST AND NOT THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURIST AND FOURTHLY THER E IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME DERIVED BY SRI G. LAKSHMANA RAO AT THE RELEV ANT TIME BY THE ASSESSEES FATHER SRI G. LAKSHMANA RAO. THUS THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 17. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN TH E ALLEGED LOAN OF RS.8 LAKHS STATED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM H IS FATHER SRI LAKSHMANA RAO AND HENCE WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 8 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO U/S 69A OF T HE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE A RE REJECTED. 3. EVEN THOUGH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE FACTS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE WITH FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING TAK PATTIES TOWARDS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO THE AGRI CULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE, DETAILS OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND, INCOME CERTIFI CATE FROM MRO, BUT WE FIND THAT THE BASIC ISSUES WITH REGARD TO THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION REMAINS THE SAME. WE FIND THAT THE CIT ( A) CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER CLAIMED EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OR DURING SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE MANGO GARDEN HAD BEEN LEASED O UT TO SHRI ITA NO.647/HYD/201 0 G.RAMANLAL, HYDERABAD . ========================= 3 VALIVETI KRISHNA RAO. THE CIT (A) ALSO POINTED OUT IN HIS ORDER THAT SOME CONTRADICTIONS IN THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING TH E COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS RECORDED ON 27-8-2004 WHICH WERE REPRODUCED IN HIS ORDER AT PARA 7.5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND CO NSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE IN THE EARLIER YEARS MENTIONED SUPRA, WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLA IMED BY HIM. IN VIEW OF THIS MATTER, WE FIND THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AURHTORITIES ON THIS ISSUE ARE CORRECT AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FO R. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30-6-2011. SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) (AKBER BASHA) VICE PRESIDENT. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DT/-30-06-2011. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYAS E LEGANCE, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. 3. 4 5. JMR* INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(4), HYDERABAD. CIT (A)-VI, HYDERABAD. CIT, AP, HYDERABAD. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. ITA NO.647/HYD/201 0 G.RAMANLAL, HYDERABAD . ========================= 4