D.Venkaatesh, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 681/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90733 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL JCIT D R
• Assessee Lawyers: T T DURAIRAJ KANDIAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

, SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , , ! ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # ./ I.T.A.NO.681 /MDS./2015 ( $% &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-05) MR.D.VENKATESH , NO.6,RANJITH ROAD, KOTTURPURAM, CHENNAI 600 085. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENRAL CIRCLE 2(4), NUNGAMBAKKA, CHENNAI 600 034. PAN ABVPV 7666 H ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) #'( ) * / APPELLANT BY : MR.T.T.DURAIRAJ KANDIAR C.A +,'( ) * / RESPONDENT BY : DR.B.NISCHAL, JCIT, D.R - . ) / 0 / DATE OF HEARING : 17.07.2015 1& ) / 0 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.07.2015 / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-19, CHENN AI DATED 28.11.2007 IN ITA NO.286/06-07 PASSED UNDER SEC.14 3(3) READ WITH SECTION SEC. 250 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.681 /MDS/2015 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ELABORATE GROUNDS IN HI S APPEAL; HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN ARBITRARILY TREATING THE ENTIR E DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF ` 2,08,425/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GRANITES, F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 02.09.2004 ADMITTING HIS TOTAL INCOME AS ` 6,10,530/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) WAS COMPLET ED ON 30.11.2006 WHEREIN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TREATE D THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 2,08,425/- DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER A SKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS OBTAINED FIVE ACRES OF AGRICULTURE LAND ON LEASE FROM SHRI HARI RAO ON WHI CH HE HAD PERFORMED THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND EARNED IN COME OF ITA NO.681 /MDS/2015 3 ` 2,08,425/-. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER REJ ECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- I) MERE HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON LEASE IS N OT SUFFICIENT PROOF FOR EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. II) THERE WAS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLI SH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PERFORMED AGRICULTURAL OPERATION ON TH E LAND OBTAINED ON LEASE. III) THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, DETAILS OF CROPS CULTIVATED, AND EXPENSES ON AGRICULTURAL OPER ATIONS. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HAVING EARNED AGRICULTURA L INCOME AND TREATED THE SAME AS HIS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND ADDE D TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE VIZ-A-V IS THE EARLIER APPELLATE ORDERS IN THIS CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPE LLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL; HOWEVER, ALL THESE GROUNDS ARE DIRECTED ITA NO.681 /MDS/2015 4 TOWARDS THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS UNDI SCLOSED INCOME. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF AG RICULTURAL INCOME ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT OF RS.2,08.425/- TREATED AS UNDISC LOSED INCOME. IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER THAT MERE HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS ON LEASE IS NOT SUFFI CIENT PROOF TO CLAIM RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME UNLESS SUCH CLAIM IS CORROBO RATED WITH PROPER EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF RS.2,0 8.425/- WHICH WAS CREDITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HENCE ADDED THE SAME. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN ASSESSING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED IN COME IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ON THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPEAL, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.286/06-07 IS DISMISSED AS UNSUBSTANTIATED. 4. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE REVEN UE HAD NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN POSS ESSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BY WAY OF LEASE. HE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT TO PROVE THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS, VOUCHERS, BILLS ETC., ARE NOT MANDATORY AS PER THE ACT. HE FURTHER ARGUED STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LEASED OUT THE LAND ONLY FOR THE ITA NO.681 /MDS/2015 5 PURPOSE OF EARNING INCOME OUT OF AGRICULTURAL OPERA TIONS AND THERE WAS NO OTHER REASON. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED. LD. D.R ON THE OTHER HAND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PER USED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT LEASED OUT AGRICULTU RAL LAND. IT IS ALSO A COMMON PRACTICE TO LEASE OUT AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY OTHER REASONS FOR THE ASSE SSEE TO ACQUIRE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ON LEASE OTHER THAN FOR AGRIC ULTURAL OPERATIONS. THOUGH THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT TH E HE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM SUCH LEASED AGRICULTURAL L AND, THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONDUCTED ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ON THE LAND WHI CH COULD BE EASILY ASCERTAINED. MOREOVER, THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE OF ` 2,08,425/- IS ALSO REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE EXTEN T OF FIVE ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH HE IS IN POSSESSION. CONSI DERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED V IEW THAT THE VIEW ITA NO.681 /MDS/2015 6 OF REVENUE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE DECLARE D AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS HIS UNDISCLOSED CREDIT. THEREFORE, I HEREBY DIRE CT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 2,08,425/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT BY THE LD.A.O. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST JULY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ! ' ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 31 ST JULY, 2015. K S SUNDARAM. ) +/23# 43&/ /COPY TO: 1. #'( /APPELLANT 2. +,'( /RESPONDENT 3. - 5/ (#) /CIT(A) 4. - 5/ /CIT 5. 38 +/9$ /DR 6. :% ;. /GF