SHRI PRABHDYAL SINGH , AMRITSAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 (4), AMRITSAR

ITA 669/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0974 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 669/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Prabhdayal Singh Village Nangal Pannuan Majitha Road, Amritsar [PAN: BEXPS 3265M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Amritsar (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 13.10.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar, in respect of Assessment Year 2016-17, arising out of the Assessment Order dated 17.12.2018 of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(4), Amritsar. ITA No. 669/Asr/2019 Prabhdayal Singh v. ITO 2 2. The adjournment application is rejected. There was a delay of 15 days which is hereby condoned and appeal is admitted to be heard on merits. 3. None appeared for the assessee, nor any adjournment application received on record, however, after going through the ground of appeal, and hearing the ld. Addl. CIT-DR on the disputed addition of Rs.6,67,430/- on account of treating agricultural income declaring by appellant assessee as income from other sources, it is decided to hear the appeal on merits in the interest of justice. 4. During the course of scrutiny assessment, the AO has accepted net agricultural income at Rs. 17,03,319/- as against of Rs. 25,60,000/- declared by the appellant assessee thus, the difference of Rs.8,56,690/- was assessed as assessee’s income from other sources and added to the return income. 5. In the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.6,67,430/- out of the said addition of Rs. 8,56,690/- made by the AO as above. While confirming the addition, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax observed that the AO was reasonable in estimating the net agricultural ITA No. 669/Asr/2019 Prabhdayal Singh v. ITO 3 income, by considering the agricultural income shown in the preceding assessment year. 6. The appellant assessee objected to the action of the ld. CIT(A) in the ground of appeal contended that the ld. CIT(A) has estimated agricultural income purely on whims and fancies ignoring the fact that the assessee is a pure agriculturist and had no other source of income other than agricultural income and he was also earning income from cash crops in addition to main seasonal crops. The assessee has also contended that he had declared income from agricultural on actual receipt basis having duly substantiated with the support of agricultural land holding. He is not required to maintain the books of account for this purpose. 7. The ld. Addl. CIT-DR stand by the order of the CIT(A). 8. Having heard the ld. Addl. CIT-DR, perusal of the record, and the impugned order, it is seen from the record that admittedly, the appellant assessee has claimed agricultural land holding to the size of 27 acres, and the sales of agricultural produced to the extent of Rs.39,86,730/-. The ld. AO and the ld. CIT(A) has questioned the sale of Rs.24,41,537/- for want of details to substantiate such steep growth in the agricultural income vis a vis agricultural expenses incurred to earn such income. However, the CIT(A) ITA No. 669/Asr/2019 Prabhdayal Singh v. ITO 4 has not brought on record any documentary evidence to disprove the agricultural income claimed by the appellant assessee merely alleging that the appellant has not produced documentary evidence and has not discharged the initial onus is not sufficient to disprove its claim of the agricultural income in the light of the size of the agricultural land holding duly admitted by the authorities below. If we can adopt a minimum productivity yardstick in terms of Rupees per acre as claimed by the agriculturist in the Punjab state where irrigated agricultural cultivation is practiced, the agricultural income of the appellant could be computed at Rs.20,000/- per acre. Thus, the estimated agricultural income of the assessee could be computed to the extent of Rs.54,00,000/- as against what is claimed at Rs.39,86,750/- as above. In view of the matter, the finding of the AO and the ld. CIT(A) are infirm and perverse to the facts on record. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, in our view, the claim of the agricultural income by the assessee is justified. 9. In view of the above, we accept the grievance of the assessee as justified. Accordingly, addition of Rs.6,67,430/- is deleted. ITA No. 669/Asr/2019 Prabhdayal Singh v. ITO 5 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.10.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr/PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order