Smt. Sanman Singh Kirar, Vidisha V. ITO Vidisha, Vidisha

ITA 695/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5597 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SINGHI
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA A RS
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 69A; 147; 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING ITA NO.695/IND/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 SMT. SANMAN SINGH KIRAR VIDISHA : APPELLANT PAN: BAZPK4647K V/S ITO VIDISHA : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL & N.D. PATWA, ARS REVENUE BY SHRI P.K. SINGHI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 30.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.09.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED AT THE INSTANCE O F THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2 (IN SHORT SMT. SANMAN SINGH KIRAR ITA NO.695/IND/2019 2 LD. CIT], BHOPAL DATED 27.03.2019 WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 25.03.2014, FRAMED BY ITO V IDISHA. 2. THE REGISTRY HAS INFORMED THAT THE PRESENT APPEA L IS DELAYED BY THREE DAYS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS SUFFERING FROM DENGUE MALARIA DURING THE MONTH OF MAY 2019. ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED ON 04 .04.2019. THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL BY 03 .06.2019. DUE TO ILLNESS THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVISED TO TAKE RES T FOR SIX WEEKS. DUE TO THIS REASON THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILI NG THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. PRAYER WAS MADE TO CONDONE TH E DELAY. LD. DR OPPOSED THE REQUEST. WE HOWEVER UNDER THE GI VEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE ILLNESS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE REASON GIVING RISE TO DELAY IN FILING THE INSTANT APPEAL. WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 4. BRIEF FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND WORKING AS A RTO AGEN T. INCOME OF RS.1,59,410/- WAS DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED O N 31.07.2011 FOR A.Y. 2011-12. CASE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUG H CASS SMT. SANMAN SINGH KIRAR ITA NO.695/IND/2019 3 FOLLOWED BY SERVING OF NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT. LD. AO CALLED FOR VARIOUS INFORMATION INCLUDING THE DET AILS FOR THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THOUG H THE ASSESSEE FILED NECESSARY SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH EVI DENCE THAT HE HOLDS 23 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HAD ACCU MULATED CASH INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATION WHICH WAS U TILIZED TO DEPOSIT CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. LD. AO HOWEVER, W AS NOT SATISFIED AND MADE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.2,25,000/- U /S 69 FOR THE UNEXPLAINED MONEY INVESTED TO PURCHASE DEMAND D RAFT, IN CASH ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.10 ,25,484/- AND OTHER MINOR ADDITION OF RS.4,385/- THEREBY ASSE SSING INCOME AT RS.14,49,450/-. 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) BUT FAILED TO SUCCEED. 6. NOW ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL RAISIN G FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS BAD-IN-LAW, VOID AB INIT IO, BARRED BY LIMITATION, ILLEGAL CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.2,25,000/- U/S 69 AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY INVESTED IN PURCHASING DEMAND DRAFT FROM PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. SMT. SANMAN SINGH KIRAR ITA NO.695/IND/2019 4 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.10,25,485/- U/S 69A AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT AND ALLOWING ONLY RS.2,74,876/- OUT OF THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.13,00,360/- WITHOUT CONSID ERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. 7. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSE IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE WITH REGARD TO THIS GROUND AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO.2 & 3 ARE THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS PERTAI NING TO ADDITION OF RS.2,25,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND RS. 10,25,484/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEH EMENTLY ARGUED REFERRING TO THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIO NS: 1. THAT ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS FAMILY MEMBERS IF HOLD ING 23 ACRES AGRICULTURAL LAND AND EARNING INCOME FOR S ALE OF CROPS 2. THE LD. AO HIMSELF ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME O F RS.10,000/- PER ACRE. THUS, HE HAS ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2,30,000/- DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS INFORMED THAT HE IS HOLDING AGRICU LTURAL INCOME SINCE LAST 10 YEARS AND IS EARNING MAJORLY F ROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCED 4. RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SMITA BINOD (2017) 23 ITJ 596 (TRIB. INDORE) 9. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IF THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATION IS ESTIMATED AT RS.22,0 00/- PER ACRE ON THE TOTAL LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE MEASURING 23 ACRES AND 50% OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS TREATED AS H OUSEHOLD SMT. SANMAN SINGH KIRAR ITA NO.695/IND/2019 5 EXPENSES THEN ALSO THE ASSESSEE WILL HAVE SUFFICIEN T CASH IN HAND TO EXPLAIN THE ALLEGED ADDITIONS. FOLLOWING CH ART WAS SUBMITTED: PARTICULARS AMOUNT (A)PURCHASE OF DD IN CASH RS.2,25,000 (B) TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT RS.13,00,360 LESS SOURCE ACCEPTED BY LD. AO/CIT(A) FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME (RS.10,000/- PER ACRE FOR 23ACRES) 2,30,000 FROM COMMISSION INCOME FROM INSURANCE 44,876 BALANCE OF (B) ADDED U/S 69 RS.10,25,484 ADD A+B RS.12,50,484 EXPLANATIONS: PAST SAVINGS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME (RS,22,000 X 23)=5,06,000 FOR 10 YEARS=50,60,000 LESS 50% HOUSEHOLD AND OTHER EXPENSES 25,30,000 AMOUNT SAVED WITH ASSESSE IN 10 YEARS RS.25,30,000 10. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS SMT. SANMAN SINGH KIRAR ITA NO.695/IND/2019 6 PLACED BEFORE US AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUB MISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INS TANT APPEAL ARE GROUND NO.2 & 3 PERTAINING TO ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAI NED MONEY/CASH DEPOSIT AT RS.2,25,000/- AND RS.10,25,48 4/-. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE E XPLANATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ALLEGED ADDI TIONS ARE COMPRISING OF TWO PARTS, FIRSTLY ADDITION FOR PURCH ASE OF DD IN CASH OF RS.2,25,000/- AND SECOND IS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.13,00,360/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF PNB. 12. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HOLDS AG RICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 23 ACRES AND THE SAME BEING USED FOR AGRI CULTURAL OPERATION HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES.LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF CALCULATED INCOME OF RS.10,000/- PER ACRE IN THE YEAR AND GIVEN DEDUCTION OF RS.2,30 ,000/- AGAINST THE ALLEGED CASH DEPOSITED AT RS.13,00,360/ - AND DD PURCHASED IN CASH AND ALSO GIVEN BENEFIT OF INCOME ON COMMISSION OF RS.44,876/-. REMAINING ADDITION WAS RS.2,25,000/- FOR DD PURCHASED IN CASH AND RS.10,25 ,484/- FOR THE UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK. BOTH TO TALLING TO RS.12,50,484/-. SMT. SANMAN SINGH KIRAR ITA NO.695/IND/2019 7 13. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEES OWN AGRICULTURAL LAND SINCE LAST IS MORE THAN 10 YEARS AND CONSISTENTLY EARNED INCOME FROM AGRICULTU RAL. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE INCOME PER YEAR IS MUCH M ORE THAN RS.22,000/- PER ACRE BUT STILL IF CONSERVATIVE FIGU RE OF RS.22,000/- PER ACRES IS TAKEN THE YEARLY INCOME WI LL BE RS.5,06,000/- AND FOR LAST 10 YEARS IT WILL BE RS.5 0,60,000/-. AGAINST THIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME EVEN IF 50% IS TRE ATED AS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES THEN ALSO ASSESSEE WILL HAVE A S AVING OF RS.25,30,000/- OF LAST 10 YEARS AND THAT WILL BE SU FFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE ALLEGED ADDITIONS OF RS.12,50,484/- AS REFERRED ABOVE. IN SUPPORT HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIO N OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMITA BINOD VS. ITO 3 ITJ 596 (2017) . IN THE CASE OF SMT. SMITA BINOD & OTHERS THE FINDING OF THIS TRIBUNAL READS AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE DETAILED CHART OF PRODUCTION AND SALE OF VARIOUS PRODUCE LIK E WHEAT, CHANA, SOYA, PLACED ON RECORD DULY INDICATING THE M ONTH OF PRODUCTION AND ALSO DATE OF SALE, RATE AT WHICH THE PRODUCED WAS SOLD. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO GIVEN DETAILED BREA KUP OF THE VARIOUS EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR PRODUCING THES E CROPS WHICH IN TOTAL AMOUNTED TO RS.1,99,500/-. THUS, THE TOTAL NET INCOME OF RS.6,21,270/- WAS SHOWN IN RESPECT O F LAND OF 18.86 ACRES IN RATANPUR AREA, BHOPAL, YIELDING A VERAGE RATE OF RS.33,000/- PER ACRE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ESTIMATED RS.15,000/- PER ACRE . SMT. SANMAN SINGH KIRAR ITA NO.695/IND/2019 8 KEEPING IN VIEW THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE AS NARRATED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (APPEALS ) IN HIS ORDER WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED, IT WOULD BE MOST REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME AT RS.22,000/- PE R ACRE OF LAND FOR COMPUTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO VARIOUS CROPS. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY TAKING THE INCOME OF RS.22,000/- PER ACRE OF LAND. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 14. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDING WE OBSERVE TH AT THE ASSESSEE REFERRED IN THIS DECISION IS ALSO FROM THE SAME AREA NEAR BHOPAL AND AGAINST THE ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTU RAL INCOME OF RS.15,000/- PER ACRE, THIS TRIBUNAL ESTIMATED IT AT RS.22,000/- PER ACRES. TAKING BASIS FROM THIS DECIS ION EVEN IF WE TAKE A CONSERVATIVE FIGURE OF RS.15,000/- PER AC RES THEN ALSO THE ESTIMATED INCOME FOR 23 ACRES AGRICULTURAL AND FOR LAST 10 YEARS COMES TO RS.34,50,000/- AND AFTER REDUCIN G 50% FOR HOUSEHOLD AND OTHER EXPENSES THERE WOULD STILL REMA IN A SAVING OF RS.17,25,000/-. EVEN THIS FIGURE OF RS.17,25,000 /- COULD BE SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ALLEGED ADDITIO N OF RS.12,50,484/-. 15. WE, THEREFORE, UNDER THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND THE ASSESSEE BEING AN OWNER OF 23 ACRE S OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BEING CONSISTENTLY USED FOR AGRIC ULTURAL SMT. SANMAN SINGH KIRAR ITA NO.695/IND/2019 9 OPERATIONS, ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ACC UMULATED INCOME OF PAST YEARS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE WOULD BE SU FFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DD PURCHASED IN LAW OF RS.2,2 5,000/- AND ALSO SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ALLEGED CA SH DEPOSIT OF RS.10,50,484/-. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE FINDIN G OF LD. CIT(A), AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.2,25 ,000/- & RS.10,50,484/-. GROUND NO.2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEE APP EAL ARE ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITANO.695 /IND/2019 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED AS PER RULE 34 OF ITAT RULES, 1963 ON 21.09.2021. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER / DATED : 21.09. 2021 PATEL/PS COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE