Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, GONDA V. ITO, GONDA

ITA 649/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 64923714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K DEY
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH RAJ SHUKLA
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 649/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000 - 01 MR VIJAI PRATAP SINGH VILL. HINDUSINGH PURWA BH ITAURA, MANKAPUR, GONDA V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER GONDA PAN: AUYPS8657B (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI. ASHISH RAJ SHUKLA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. P. K. DEY, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 01.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 .0 5 .2014 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAINLY ON TWO GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - 1 . THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 AND THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD AND ILLEGAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THIS REGARD UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 2 . THAT THE LD. ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.35,000/ - PERTAINING TO RECEIPTS FROM GROVE AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THIS ADDITION UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 2 - : 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED NOT TO PRESS G ROUND NO.1 RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT') WAS INITIATED ONLY TO REGULARIZE THE INCOME AND TO COLLECT THE UNPAI D TAX ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS EVIDENTLY BARRED BY LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 3 . WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.2, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.35,000/ - FOR LEASE OF GROVE TO SOME ABBAS ALI AND IN SUPPORT THEREOF HE HAS FILED COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI. ABBAS ALI RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS , THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE INCOME SHOULD NOT BE TREATED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS EARNED BY HIS WIFE. HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. 4 . THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C LAIMED THIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY HIS WIFE ON LEASING OF G ROVE , BUT HE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE OF LEASING OF GROVE TO EARN AGRICULTURAL INCOME. DESPITE THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE OWNERSHIP OF TH E G ROVE OF HIS WIFE. 5 . HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.35,000/ - WAS EARNED BY HIS WIFE, SMT. DURGESH NAN DINI O N LEASING OF GROVE TO ABBAS ALI, BUT NO EVIDENCE IS FILED WITH REGARD TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS GROVE DESPITE THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI. ABBAS ALI, BUT FROM THIS STATEMENT IT CANNOT BE PROVED THAT T HE ASSESSEES WIFE IN FACT OWN ANY GROVE WHICH WAS LEASED OUT TO SHRI. ABBAS ALI. SINCE THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH TH E FACT THAT TH E AMOUNT OF RS.35,000/ - WAS PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 3 - : EARNED BY HIS WIFE AND IT IS NOT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT DISCHARGE HIS ONUS. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL , ON WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS ANNULLED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS REOPENED AFTER A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS WITHOUT ESTABLISH ING THE FACT THAT THE INCOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF NON - DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN FACTS BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE CONTROVERSY OF THE PRESENT CASE. SINCE NO EVIDENCE IS P LACED ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.35,000/ - WAS EARNED BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY THEREIN. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.5.2014. S D/ - S D/ - [ A. K. GARODIA ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7 TH MAY , 2014 JJ : 0105 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ )