Sh. Amarjit Singh, Phagwara V. The Income-tax Officer, Phagwara

ITA 759/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8876 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: Y K SUD
• Keywords: Business income; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 44AD; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 759(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-0 PAN: AXBPS0238B SH. AMARJIT SINGH, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VILLAGE FATEHGARH, WARD-1, PHAGWARA. P.O. PANDORI, PHAGWARA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. Y.K.SUD, CA RESPONDENT BY: SMT. RATINDER KAUR, DR DATE OF HEARING: 19/11/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/02/2016 ORDER THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2014, PASSED BY THE L D. CIT(A), JALANDHAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ESTIMATING THE PROFIT @ 8% ON THE CONTRAC TUAL RECEIPTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THAT BOTH THE CIT(A) AND AO FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND CASE LAWS CITED THAT 44AD PROVISIONS CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE CASES WHERE THE CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS ARE OVER 40 LACS. 3. THAT BOTH THE CIT(A) AND AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF MAKING ASSESSMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND INCOME COU LD HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE AO AFTER POINTING OUT O F THE DEFECTS AND THEREFORE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT. ITA NO.759(ASR)/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 2 4. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE INCOME E STIMATED @ 8% BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS HIGHL Y EXCESSIVE AS PER THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING T HE ACTION OF THE AO IN ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS.35,34,722/- WHILE SUSTAINING THIS ADDITION THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND DISPOSE OFF SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE, COMPRISING GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4, IS THE ASSESSEES CHALLENGE TO THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAI NING THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT @ 8% ON THE ASSESSEES CONTRACTUAL RECEIPTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, DECLARING INCOME OF R S.1,25,870/-. THIS CONSISTED OF BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.1,23,370/- FROM CIVIL CONTRACT BUSINESS, ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.15,42,131/- AND RS.2,500 /-, AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, BEING INTEREST INCOME. ON EXAMINING FORM NO. 26AS, THE AO FOUND THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ACTUALLY RECEIVED CO NTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.67,43,503/- FROM M/S. ARVIND TECHNO ENGINEERS PV T. LIMITED (RS.44,72,839/-), UP STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. (RS.21,01,685/-), DY. PROJECT MANAGER, UP STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. ( RS.25,371/-) AND DY. PROJECT MANAGER BCU-II (RS.1,43,068/-), WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN HIS RETURN ONLY AT RS.15 ,42,131/- FROM UP STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. ON FURTHER ENQUIRIES , THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RECEIVED CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.2,96,910/- FROM ITA NO.759(ASR)/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 3 IJM COMPANY, JAIPUR, APART FROM CONTRACT RECEIPTS O F RS.67,43,503/-. THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF R S.70,40,413/- [RS.67,43,503/- + RS.2,96,910/-] WERE NOT DISPUTED. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.15,42,131 /- IN HIS RETURN FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND THE AO WORKED OUT THE BUSIN ESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM CIVIL CONTRACT BUSINESS AT RS.5,63,23 3/- BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.70,40, 413/- AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 4. WHILE UPHOLDING THE AFORESAID ACTION OF THE AO, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD WORKED OUT THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CONTRACT BUSINESS BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE OF 8%, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF DECLARED NET PROFIT RATE @ 8% ON PART OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS DECLARED IN THE RETURN; THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS COULD NOT BE RELIED, ON AS THEY WERE PREPARED WHEN THE AO HAD DETECTED THAT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS HAD NOT BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME; AND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF ADMI TTED THAT HE EARNED NET PROFIT AT 8% ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS, NO FAULT COULD BE FOUND WITH THE ACTION OF THE AO IN WORKING OUT THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE OF 8% ON THE ACTUAL CONT RACT RECEIPTS. 5. BEFORE THIS BENCH, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A), WHILE WRONGLY UPHOLDING THE AO S ACTION IN ESTIMATING NET PROFIT @ 8% ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF THE ASS ESSEE UNDER THE ITA NO.759(ASR)/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 4 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT( A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD NOT BEEN EXAMINED AND T HE INCOME HAD WRONGLY BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE AO WITHOUT POINTING O UT ANY DEFECT IN THE BOOKS AND REJECTING THEM. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS STRONGLY RELIE D ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE BOOKS HAVE TO BE PREPARED BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN AND NOT AFTER DETECTION OF FAU LT BY THE DEPARTMENT. 7. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A CIVIL SUB CONTRACTOR, CARRYING OUT THE WORK OF LAYING FOUNDATIONS FOR BRI DGES. BEFORE THE AO, IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED H IS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS AND WITHOUT PO INTING OUT ANY DEFECTS THEREIN, THE AO ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES IN COME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEES INCOME WAS ADMITTEDLY OF MORE THAN RS.40,00,000/-. IN THI S REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD, AT APB-27, A LE TTER ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO. PARA-2 THEREOF READS AS UNDER: 2. PLEASE FIND ATTACHED WITH THE FINAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS DERIVED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE N OW DRAFTED AND WE REQUEST TO KINDLY MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BAS IS OF THESE ACCOUNTS. 7.1. THE ASSESSEES BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN PLACED AT APB 29-30. THESE ARE ALSO FILED ITA NO.759(ASR)/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 5 BEFORE THE AO, WHO NEITHER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NOR POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT THEREIN, NOR TOOK THEM INTO CONSIDERATION. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE RELIED ON, AS THEY HAD BEEN PREPARED ON LY WHEN THE AO HAD DETECTED THAT THE TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS HAD NOT BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. NOW, THIS IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT, WHEREBY I NCOME OF AN ASSESSEE CAN BE ESTIMATED IN OBLIVION OR DISREGARDED OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH BOOKS ARE NOT REJECTED U/S 145 OF THE ACT. IN CASE THE DEPARTMENT CHOOSES NOT TO G O BY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED, IT IS A MUST FOR THE AO TO REJECT THEM ON THE BASIS OF A REASONED ORDER, BY POINTING OUT THE SPECIFIC DEFEC TS THEREIN. THIS HAS ILLEGALLY NOT BEEN DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE B OOKS PRODUCED CANNOT BE DISREGARDED MERELY ON A SPECIOUS OBSERVATION TH AT THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE, HAVING BEEN PREPARED AFTER DETECTION. THE UNDISPUTED FACT REMAINS THAT THESE BOOKS WERE DULY PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE AO DID NOT REJECT THEM. IT IS NOT A CASE OF LEVY OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY, WHERE CH ANGE OF STAND AFTER DETECTION MAY BE DETRIMENTAL. 9. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED TO THE FILE O F THE AO, TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ON DULY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, BY AFFOR DING ADEQUATE ITA NO.759(ASR)/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 6 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT HIS CASE. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE, THUS, TREATED AS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 9. ACCORDING TO GROUND NO.5, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE AOS ACTION IN ESTIMATING THE AGRICU LTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.35,34,722/- WITHOUT DISPOSING OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. AS PER THE AO, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS IN RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.34,30,758/- DUR ING THE YEAR, WHICH WAS NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCO ME. THE AO HELD THAT THIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAD BEEN EARNED BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AND IT HAD TO BE TAXED AS PER THE PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT. 11. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT THE AO HAD ERRED IN WORKING OUT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.34,30, 758/- FROM THE COPIES OF J-FORMS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAD FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME; AND THAT THE EX PENSES, WHICH WERE TO THE TUNE OF 60% OF THE SALE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOW ED. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BE ESTIMATE D, AT THE MOST, AT 40% OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.34,30,758/-, I.E., THE TOTA L SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. 12. THE LD. CIT(A) REMITTED THE AFORESAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO, FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE AO, VIDE REMAND REPORT DATED ITA NO.759(ASR)/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 7 25.9.2014, STATED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OF THE EXPENSES OUT OF RECEIPTS OF RS.34,30,758/-, NOR HAD ANY SUCH CLAIM BEEN MADE; THAT RATHER, IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VIDE REPLY DATED 25.8.201 0, THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT HE HAD BEEN DOING AGRICULTU RE ON 110 ACRES OF LAND AND THE AVERAGE INCOME PER ACRE WAS RS.25,000 RS.30,000; AND THAT BY APPLYING THE MEAN OF RS.27,500/-, THE AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CAME TO RS.30,25,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ASK ED THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS COUNTER COMMENTS ON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO . THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE, VIDE LETTER DATED 04.10.2014, STATED THAT THE AO HAD RELIED ON THE LETTER ANNEXED AT SL. NO.152 FOR COMPUTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON 110 ACRES OF LAND BY APPLYING RS.27,500/- AS INCO ME PER ACRE, FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID LETTER, WHER EIN, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY STATED THAT HE AND HIS FAMILY WERE DOING A GRICULTURE ON 110 ACRES OF LAND; THAT THE AO FURTHER IGNORED THE LET TER ANNEXED AT S. NO. 278, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY STATED THAT H E WAS DOING FARMING ON 75 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE TOTAL LAND HOLDING OF HIS FAMILY OF 110 ACRES AND THAT THE TOTAL AGRICULTURE PRODUCE SOLD ON J-FORMS AMOUNTED TO RS.35,34,722/-; THAT EVEN IF THE AOS FORMULA OF ESTIMATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME @ RS.27,500/- PER ANNUM WERE T O BE CONSIDERED, THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTED TO RS.20,62, 500/-, I.E., 27500 X 75 AND NOT RS.35,34,722/-, AS ASSESSED BY THE AO AN D THAT THE TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS OF THE CROPS AS PER THE J FORMS COULD NE VER BE THE INCOME OF ITA NO.759(ASR)/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 8 THE ASSESSEE, SINCE AGRICULTURE EXPENSES HAD TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE SAME. 13. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, UPHELD THE AOS ACTION IN ASSESSING THE ASSESSEES AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.34,30,758/-. F OR DOING SO, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF ADMITTED THA T HE HAD EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME (NET OF EXPENSES) AT RS.25000 30000/- PER ACRE, I.E., RS.27,500/- PER ANNUM, ON AN AVERAGE; THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD ALSO HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS T O THE EXTENT OF 60% OF THE GROSS AGRICULTURE RECEIPTS; THAT THIS MEANT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.68,750/- PER ANNUM, WHICH FURTHER MEANT THAT THE GROSS AGRICULTURE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM 110 ACRES OF LAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN RS.75,62,500/- (RS.6 8,750/- X 110) AND NOT RS.35,34,722/-, IN RESPECT OF WHICH, J-FORMS HA D BEEN SUBMITTED; AND THAT THUS, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT SUBMITTED ALL THE J-FORMS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 14. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO, SINCE THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), TO THE EFFECT THAT 110 ACRES OF LAND WAS THE TOTAL HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY, WHEREAS IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, THE HOL DING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT OF ONLY 75 ACRES, THOUGH THEY WERE REPROD UCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER, THEY WERE WRONGLY NOT TAKEN IN TO CONSIDERATION BY HIM. ITA NO.759(ASR)/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 9 15. THE LD. DR HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IM PUGNED ORDER. 16. HEREIN, IT IS SEEN THAT INDEED, THE SPECIFIC ST AND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, AS ALSO BEFORE THIS BENCH, HAS BEEN THAT THE LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT OF 75 ACRES AND NOT OF 110 ACRES, WHICH WAS THE TOTAL LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE AFORE-MENTIONED LETTER APB-27 (ADDRESSED TO THE AO), THE ASSESSEE STATED AS FOLLO WS: 1. WITH RESPECT TO YOUR QUERY REGARDING TOTAL AGRI CULTURE LAND PLOUGHED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DOING FARMING ON 75 ACRES OF LAND OUT O F TOTAL AGRICULTURE LAND HOLDING OF 110 ACRES AND HAS SOLD AGRICULTURE PRODUCE OF RS.35,34,722.39 DURING THE AY 2008-09, AS EVIDENT F ROM THE STATEMENT OF AHARTIA. 17. HOWEVER, THE AO TOOK THE LAND HOLDING OF THE AS SESSEE TO BE 110 ACRES AND NOT 75 ACRES, AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CI T(A), WITHOUT REJECTING THE ASSESSEES THIS SPECITIFC CONTENTION. 18. FURTHER, EVEN IN RESPONSE TO THE AOS REMAND RE PORT, WHEREIN HE HAD REITERATED HIS OBSERVATIONS/FINDINGS THAT THE L AND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF 110 ACRES, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS C OUNTER COMMENTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PAR A 6.3 OF THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THEREIN, AS F OLLOWS: THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE LETTER AT S.NO.152 FOR CO MPUTING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME ON 110 ACRES OF LAND BY APPLYING 27500 AS INCOME PER ACRE. THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE CO NTENTS OF THIS LETTER WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY STATED THAT H E AND HIS FAMILY ARE DOING AGRICULTURE ON 110 ACRES OF LAND. FURTHER , THE AO IGNORED THE LETTER ANNEXED ON S.NO.278 WHEREIN HE HAS CLEA RLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE IS DOING FARMING ON 75 ACRES OF LAND OUT O F TOTAL LAND ITA NO.759(ASR)/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 10 HOLDING OF HIS FAMILY OF 11 ACRES AND THE TOTAL AGR ICULTURE PRODUCE SOLD ON J-FORMS AMOUNTS TO RS.35,34,722/- EVEN IF W E GO BY THE FORMULA OF THE AO OF ESTIMATING AGRICULTURE INCOME @ RS.27,500/- PER ACRE THE TOTAL AGRICULTURE INCOME AMOUNTS TO RS .2062500/-, I.E. 27500 X 75 AND NOT RS.35,34,722/- ASSESSED BY THE A O . THE TOTAL SALE PROCEEDS OF CROP AS PER J FORMS CAN NEVER BE T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN SET OFF AGAIN ST THE SAME. 19. THUS, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY APPRISED THE LD. CIT(A) OF THE ABOVE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE AO, THE LD. CIT(A) REMAINED IN OBLIVION OF THIS AND MERELY REITERATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING LAND HOLDING OF 110 ACRES AND NOT 75 ACRES, AS HAD ALSO BEEN WRO NGLY HELD BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FALLEN IN ERROR IN UPHOLDING T HE AOS ACTION IN ASSESSING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS .34,30,758/-. THIS CONCLUSION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS FOUND TO BE A RES ULT OF COMPLETE MISREADING AND NON-READING OF THE AFORESAID CONTENT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WHICH WERE NOT R EJECTED AT ANY STAGE. 20. EVEN BEFORE THIS BENCH, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGH T ON RECORD TO REBUT THE ASSESSEES SPECIFIC STAND THAT HIS LAND H OLDING WAS 75 ACRES AND NOT 110 ACRES, WHICH WAS THE TOTAL LAND HOLDIN G OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY. 21. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS U NSUSTAINABLE AND IT IS REVERSED. 22. TAKING THE FORMULA OF THE AO, ON ESTIMATING AGR ICULTURE INCOME @ RS.27,500/- PER ANNUM, THE TOTAL AGRICULTURE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS LAND HOLDING OF 75 ACRES COMES TO RS.27,5 00 X 75 = RS.20,62,500 AND NOT OF RS.35,34,722/-, AS ASSESSED . THEREFORE, THE ITA NO.759(ASR)/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 11 AMOUNT OF RS.35,34,722/- MINUS RS.20,62,500/- = RS .14,72,222/- IS DELETED FROM THE ADDITION MADE AND THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,62,500/-. AS SUCH, GROUND NO.5 IS A CCEPTED. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED, AS INDICATED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/02/2016 SD/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 08/02/2016 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. AMARJIT SINGH, PHAGWARA 2. THE ITO, WARD-1, PHAGWARA. 3. THE CIT(A), JLR. 4. THE CIT, JLR. 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.