Manish Vachhani, Vadodara V. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

ITA 671/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6931 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (through web-based video conferencing platform) ] ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 671/Ahd/2019 Assessment Years : 2014-15 Shri Manish Vachhani, C/o. M/s. Analog & Digital Inst., 962-GIDC, Makarpura, Vadodara-390010 PAN : AAXPV 9598 D Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Vadodara / (Appellant) / (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr DR /Date of Hearing : 10/11/2021 /Date of Pronouncement: 07/12/2021 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT : The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-5), Vadodara [“CIT(A) in short] dated 05.03.2019 passed for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.47,175/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, derives income from capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee has filed his return of income on 30.07.2014 declaring taxable income at Rs.28,89,920/- and agricultural income of Rs.47,175/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued and served upon the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of agricultural ITA No. 671/Ahd/2019 Manish Vachhani Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15 2 income by observing that the assessee did not file complete details. In this way, an addition of Rs.47,175/- was made to the total income of the assessee. 4. On appeal, learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by observing as under:- “4. I have considered the order of the AO and the written submission of the appellant. AR is also heard in this matter. 4.1 Appellant's effective ground of appeal pertains to disallowance of agriculture income on account of failure on the part of appellant to substantiate its claim. At para 3 of the assessment order, it is mentioned that appellant has failed to submit 7/12 extract, agriculture income details. However, the same has been filed before me. Appellant's land holding comes to approx 3.0 acre held jointly by six family members. 7/12 extract clearly suggests these lands have no means of irrigation “SADHAN NATHI." No trees have grown either on these lands. In totality, appellant's claim of agriculture income generated from these land holding looks overstated. 4.2 Another bizarre fact is that 7/12 extract generation date suggest 03/03/2011 01:39:03 PM. 7/12 extract printed date is 26.12.2015 09:16:33 AM . Only one 8-A certificate for the record printed date 29.08.2016 02.11 PM is produced. However, that 8-A certificate is for A/c No. 169 at Vill. Ankhi and that A/c No. 169 Ankhi Village belongs to Shri Jayantilal Ratilal Vachhani and not to the appellant. Moreover, assessment under consideration pertains to F.Y. 2013-14 hence appellant should have produced 7/12 extract as on 31/03/2014 and not as on 03/03/2011 or 29.08.2016. Appellant's attempt to mislead the revenue is deplorable. 4.3 Ld. AR's reliance placed, oh assessment order for A.Y. 2004-05 accepting agriculture income of Rs.4,646/- is misplaced. Each assessment is separate and distinct and therefore 'res-judicata' does not apply. Much water has flown since A.Y. 2004-05 till A.Y. 2014-15 i.e. A.Y under consideration. Entire world is changing fast. Ld.AR should not compare a decade old assessment order for the purpose of determining agriculture income. No new facts have emerged, since assessment proceedings. Neither appellant has submitted concrete evidence to substantiate agriculture income as of now. Considering these facts in mind, I decline to interfere with the assessment order. Agricultural income of Rs. 47,175/- is neither conceivable not acceptable and hence rejected. In consequence, addition of Rs.47,175/- u/s 56 of the Act is hereby upheld.” ITA No. 671/Ahd/2019 Manish Vachhani Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15 3 5. In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee; however, a written submission dated 02.11.2021 was filed by the assessee which has been placed on record. Copies of Form No.7 and 12 issued under Gujarat Land Revenue Act, exhibiting the land holding and the crops shown by the assessee, have been filed along with written submission. These documents were also filed before the learned First Appellate Authority as they have been discussed in the impugned order extracted supra. 6. With the assistance of learned Sr. DR, we have gone through the record carefully. To our mind, learned First Appellate Authority has totally failed to appreciate the Revenue Record. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned CIT(A) has made reference to the generation of 7/12 vis-à-vis taking its print out. This might have been taken by the assessee from the web-site. It is pertinent to observe that Form No.7 is a document maintained by the State Revenue Officials during their ordinary course of business. It is a document where the revenue entries are to be updated periodically, more particularly once in four years. It is a document which exhibits the land holding viz. (a) revenue state where the land holding is situated, (b) area of agricultural land, (c) details of agricultural land viz. quilla number etc. and (d) details of owners showing their shares. It also reflects any special rights, if available, to the land owner. Form No.12 is a document which requires to be updated twice a year where the revenue officials would incorporate the crops grown by a farmer (Khedut). This is the document where the revenue officials would incorporate details of crops shown by agriculturists and it is to be updated according to Rabi and Kharif crops. The name of the assessee is there. The third important factor pleaded by the assessee before us is that in the revenue record, though no means of irrigations has been provided, but it has to be appreciated that the ITA No. 671/Ahd/2019 Manish Vachhani Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15 4 means of irrigation in that particular area may not be there, but water can be provided from any other tube-well in the adjoining filed of the assessee or from the field of any other family member. The assessee has shown crop of “Kela” in AY 2013-14. He has also shown sugarcane. For example, for Assessment Year 2013-14, he has shown sugarcane as Kharif crop and Shak Baji as Rabi crop. The leaned Commissioner also failed to take cognizance of exact area possessed by all the family members in the joint holdings. It is in hectare and not in acre. To our mind, the assessee has declared an income of Rs.28,89,290/-. He would not make a false claim for Rs.47,175/-. There should be some waitage ought to be given in the pleadings of the assessee also. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to accept the agricultural income of Rs.47,175/- declared by the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 7 th December 2021 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad, Dated 07/12/2021 *Bt /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. ! / The Appellant 2. "# ! / The Respondent. 3. $%$&' # # ( / Concerned CIT 4. # # ( ) (/ The CIT(A)- 5. + , # &' , # # &' /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. , ./ 0 /Guard file. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY ह # $ज (Asstt. Registrar) # # &' ITAT, Ahmedabad ITA No. 671/Ahd/2019 Manish Vachhani Vs. DCIT AY : 2014-15 5 1. Date of dictation- ...06.12.2021...... 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ...07.12.2021............ Other member ...07.12.2021.................. 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. - ...07.12.2021............... 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement ...07.12.2021 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk....07.12.2021............... 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.................................. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..................... 8. Date of Despatch of the Order..................