Sushila Devi Agarwal, Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 758/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100322 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Assessee Lawyers: P K KAPOOR

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.758/LKW/2013 BLOCK PERIOD ENDING ON 24.03.2000 SMT. SUSHILA DEVI AGARWAL, W/O SHRI TULSI DAS AGARWAL, MOHALLA CHAUBATTA, RATH, HAMIRPUR, KANPUR (U.P.) PAN:AHUPA0682R VS. ACIT CIRCLE - I, KANPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. REVENUE BY SHRI HARISH GIDWANI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 06/07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 8 /08/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) - I, KANPUR DATED 22.08.2013. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 6 GROUNDS BUT THERE ARE ONLY TWO GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FIRST GRIEVANCE IS ABOUT REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 279,563/ - AND TREATING THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE SECOND GRIEVANCE IS CONFIRMING OF ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/ - IN RESPECT OF KVPS. 3. LEARNED A R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. HIMSELF THAT THE ASSESSEE HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1983 84 TO 1991 92 WHERE THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME BUT THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NO RETURN OF INCOME UP TO A.Y. 1997 98 AND RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1998 99 WAS 2 FILED ON 31.03.2000 I.E. AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH ON 24.03.2000. HE ALSO HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 10 AND 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HAVING COPY OF KISAN BAHI S HOWING AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING OF 2.549 HECTARES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ONLY RS. 279,563/ - SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. REGARDING THE SECOND ISSUE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE KVPS WERE PURCHASED IN SEPTEM BER 1999 OUT OF OPENING CASH IN HAND AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. ALSO AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. W E FIND THAT IN PARA 4.2.4 OF HIS ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED BY LEARNED CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM TO HAVE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE FACT IS THAT IN PARA NO. 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS STATED BY THE A.O. THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT IS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HENCE, THIS OBSERVATION OF CIT (A) IS FACTUALLY NOT CORRECT. HIS SECOND OBJECTION IS THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS NOT FERTILE BUT NO BASIS IS INDICATED BY HIM FOR SAYING SO, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE KISAN BAHI IS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS WHICH SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 2.549 HECTARES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD 6R RECEIPTS IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO VARIOUS PA RTIES SUCH AS M/S CHHOTE LAL LAXMI PRASAD, M/S GOPAL DAL MILLS ETC. AND ALTHOUGH ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BY SUCH BUYERS BUT ACCOUNTANT OF SAID CONCERNS HAS VERIFIED THE GENUINENESS OF THE 6R BY CONFIRMING THE HAND WRITING IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE A.O. U/S 131. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THIS FACT THAT THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. RS. 279,563/ - DURING 26.06.1991 TO 13.01.1999 FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING OF 2.549 HECTARES IS NOT EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE, WE FEEL THAT SUCH CLAIM DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 3 5. REGARDING THE SECOND ISSUE I.E. SOURCE OF KVPS OF RS. 50,000/ - , WE FEEL THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME WERE PURCHASED OUT OF OPENING CASH IN HAND DESERVES TO ACCEPTE D IN VIEW OF THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME DURING A.Y. 1983 84 TO 1991 92 AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THOSE YEARS AND OUR DECISION IN THE ABOVE PARA AS PER WHICH, WE ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF AGRICULTURAL I NCOME OF RS. 279,653/ - BEING CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK DURING 26.06.1991 TO 13.01.1999 AND PURCHASE OF KVPS ARE IN SEPTEMBER 1999. HENCE, WE FEEL THAT THIS CLAIM ALSO DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 8 /08/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR