Sh. Dalvinder Singh, Kaithal V. ITO, Ward-1, Kaithal

ITA 705/CHANDI/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals filed by Shri Dalvinder Singh against the orders of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The primary issue was the discrepancy in the declared agricultural income and the income assessed by the AO. The assessee declared agricultural income of Rs.25,65,000, whereas the AO, based on the J-Forms submitted, assessed it at Rs.14,93,163 and treated the differential amount as business income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision due to lack of supporting documentation from the assessee. The Tribunal, acknowledging the possibility of a procedural oversight in submitting additional evidence, decided to remand the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127516 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 704 & 705/CHD/2022 नधा रण वष / A.Y. : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Dalvinder Singh, VPO – Kwartan, Cheeka Road, Kaithal. VS The ITO, Ward 1, Kaithal. थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: EDGPS6112G अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Navdeep Monga & Shri Chetan Sood, Advocates राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR तार ख/Date of Hearing : 21.06.2023 उदघोषणा क तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2023 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the respective orders of ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. 2. Since common issues are involved, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing both the appeals by 24 days. After hearing both the parties and ITA 704 & 705/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page 2 of 5 considering the affidavit placed on record, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,44,565/- under the head ‘Business Income’ and Rs.25,65,000/-from agriculture operations. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS on the basis of large agriculture income in comparison to total income. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued calling for the information and documentation in support of the agriculture income. In response, the assessee submitted copies of Form-J and besides that, no other information was submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, the AO proceeded with the assessment proceedings u/s 144 based on material available on record. As per the AO, the assessee had only filed Form-J in respect of his agriculture income amounting to Rs.14,93,163/- and therefore, considering the same as gross agriculture income and after allowing expenditure of Rs.5,22,607/- estimated @ 35%, net agriculture income of Rs.9,70,556/- was determined as against Rs.25,65,000/- declared by the assessee in his return of income. The differential amount of Rs.15,94,444/- was treated as ‘business income’ in absence of any details furnished by the assessee and accordingly, an addition of Rs.15,94,444/- was made in the hands of the assessee. ITA 704 & 705/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page 3 of 5 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the findings of the AO stating that the assessee has not produced any documentation in support of his claim before the AO. Further, the assessee has mentioned that additional evidences were filed in terms of Rule 46A of the Act, however, no such documents were found attached with Form 35 and in view of the same, the findings recorded by the AO were confirmed. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR taken us through the orders of the lower authorities and it was submitted that apparently there was a mistake on the part of the C.A. in terms of not uploading/submitting the additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A and it was, accordingly, submitted that the assessee may be allowed an opportunity before the matter is decided against him. 7. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the order of the lower authorities and it was submitted that the assessee has been provided sufficient opportunity, both by the AO and thereafter by the ld. CIT(A), however, the assessee has failed to avail of such opportunity and therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee requires to be dismissed. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The fact that the assessee is ITA 704 & 705/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page 4 of 5 involved in agriculture operations has not been disputed by the Revenue. The only limited issue relates to the quantum of the agriculture income so disclosed by the assessee. The assessee has disclosed agriculture income of Rs.25,65,000/- in his return of income whereas the AO has determined the agriculture income amounting to Rs.14,93,163/- basis the J-Forms submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and in absence of any other information/documentation submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. Subsequently during the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) makes a mention about the additional evidences which were sought to be filed by the assessee, however, where the additional evidences were not found attached alongwith Form-35/uploaded in the IT System, he proceeded to confirm the findings of the AO. During the course of hearing, ld. AR has pleaded that he is ready with the additional evidences and has sought an opportunity to place the same and be heard on merits before the matter is decided. 9. In light of above and taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, we believe that the assessee deserves one more opportunity and we, accordingly, set aside the matter to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say the assessee shall not abuse this opportunity and attend to the proceedings as so ITA 704 & 705/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page 5 of 5 called for by the AO and file the necessary information/documentation as advised in respect of his claim of the agriculture income. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In ITA 705/CHD/2022, both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case are exactly identical, therefore, this matter is also set aside to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 12. In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.06.2023. Sd/- Sd/- आकाश द प जैन !व#म %संह यादव (AAKASH DEEP JAIN) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) उपा(य) / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद+य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER “Poonam” आदेश क琉 灹ितिलिप अ灡ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ牸/ The Appellant 2.灹瀄यथ牸/ The Respondent 3.आयकर आयु猴/ CIT 4.िवभागीय 灹ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च瀃डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5.गाड榁 फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar