SRI MANOJ KUMAR HUF , RANCHI V. DCIT CIRCLE-2 , RANCHI

ITA 79/RAN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9743 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MONDAL JCIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVESH PODDAR LD
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Rule of consistency
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 79/RAN/18 SRI MANOJ KUMAR HUF 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI (BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA , J.M. & DR.A.L.SAINI, A.M.) IT A NO. 79 /RAN/1 8 : ASSTT. YEAR : 20 1 4 - 15 SRI MANOJ KUMAR HUF PAN: AAJHM 8784L VS D.C.I.T, CIRCLE - 2, RANCHI ( ASSESSEE ) (RESP ONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEVESH PODDAR, ADVOCATE, LD.AR RESPONDENT /REVENUE BY : SHRI P.K. MONDAL, JCIT, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 01 - 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22 - 0 2 - 2019 ORDER PER BENCH : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS), RANCHI , IN I.T APPEAL NO. CIT(A), RANCHI/10399/2016 - 17, DATED 18 - 01 - 2018, WHICH IN TURN ARISE S OUT OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER , D ATED 2 8 - 12 - 201 7 , PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASS E SSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS: - 1.FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME O F RS. 10 LACKS AGAINST RS. 30,52,600 / - DIS C LOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE FOR WHICH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WAS FILED. 2. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) MADE AN ESTIMATE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITHOUT PROPER JUSTIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED AGRI CULTURAL 2 ITA NO. 79/RAN/18 SRI MANOJ KUMAR HUF 2 INCOME IN THE RETURN FILE WHICH COMPARED WELL WITH THE PA S T RECORDS AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS AS WELL. THE LD. CIT(A) WENT OUT OF WAY IN MAKING AN ESTIMATE FOR AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.10 LACKS AND TREATED THE BALANCE OF RS.20,52 , 600 / - A S INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. FOR THAT LD. C I T(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING PART OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. LD. A.O. WENT OUT OF WAY TO CONSIDER AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FOR THE A.Y. 2013 - 14 AFTER DUE VERIF ICATION LD. A.O. ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 28.51 LACKS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE ADDITION MADE THEREFORE IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. 4. FOR THAT INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B SHOULD BE CHARGE ON THE RETURNED INCOME AND ON THE A S SESSED INC OME FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT. 5. FOR THAT OTHER GROUNDS IN DETAILS WILL BE ARGUED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE FACTS QUA THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND OF ABOUT 51 ACERS IN VILLAGE IN B IHAR. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 30,52,600/ - WHICH WAS ADDED BACK BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT NO PROOF OF INCOME AND EXPENSES WAS SHOWN. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE STAND SO TAKEN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING THE FOLLOWINGS: 5. 27 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, [PARA - 5.L3] AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 10,00,000/ - IS CONSIDERED AS JUSTIFIED (BEING THE UPPER LIMIT AS THE CALCULATIONS WOULD SHOW). BALANCE AMOUNT IS TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 3 ITA NO. 79/RAN/18 SRI MANOJ KUMAR HUF 3 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LD.COU NSEL, SHRI DEVASH PODDAR, BEGINS BY POINTING OUT THAT IT WAS ON RECORD AND ACCEPTED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN PREVIOUS YEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS ANCESTRAL LAND AND WAS GENERATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE SAME SINCE LAST MANY YEARS. DURING THE YEAR, 2009 SEARCH AND SURVEY OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED UPON THE SRI MANOJ SINGH AND HIS FA MILY MEMBERS AFTER THAT REPORTS OF DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES SUCH AS ANCHAL ADIKARI, DARYAPUR AND KARSHI SAKH SHAYOG SAMITI HAD CONFIRMED THE SOURCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF A LETTER DATED 05.10.2009 FROM SRI MA HESHWAR PRASAD SINGH (PRESIDENT OF MANGARPAL PRATHIMIK KARSHI SAKH SHAYOG S AMITI) WHICH STATES THAT ASSESSEE GENERATED AN INCOME OF RS. 60,000 - 65,000/ - PER ACRE AS HIS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A COPY OF A REPORT DATED 09.12.2011 FROM ANCHAL ADIKARI DARYAPUR CONFIRMING THE SAME. THE SAME WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL LA ND, HOWEVER LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND ADDED BACK THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A LETTER DATED 25.09.2017 ISSUED BY SRI MAHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH (PRESIDENT OF MANGARPAL PRATHIMIK KARSHI SAKH SHAYO G SAMITI) WHICH STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE GENERATED AN INCOME OF RS. 75,000 - 80,000/ - PER ACRE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR - 2014 - 2015. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS PRIMARILY REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WE HAVE A LREADY NOTED IN OUR EARLIER PARA AND IS NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 4 ITA NO. 79/RAN/18 SRI MANOJ KUMAR HUF 4 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED AGRICULTURAL LAND, HOWE VER, MADE THE ADDITION STATING THAT NO BOOKS WERE PRODUCED. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS LOCATED IN RURAL AREAS OF BIHAR WHERE ALL TRANSACTIONS ARE DONE IN CASH. AGRICULTURAL RAW MATERIAL IS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH AND AGRI CULTURE PRODUCE ARE SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD BY ASSESSEE IN NEREBY VILLAGES. NO BOOKS WERE MAINTAINED. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO BUSINESS THROUGH BANKING TRANSACTION IN SUCH VILLAGE AREAS. AS SUCH, TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN CAS H. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING BACK THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE NOTE THAT EACH YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NO DISALLOWANCE WAS EVER MADE. FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 2014 , ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S. 143(3) WHEREIN AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN AT RS. 24,07,580/ - WAS ACCEPTED AFTER DUE VERIFICATION BY THE AO. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR - 20 11 - 20 1 2 AGRICULTUR AL INCOME WAS SHOWN AT RS. 13,98,000 , - AND N O DISALLOWANCE HAS EVER BEEN MADE . AS SUCH, IT IS EVIDENT FROM RECORDS AND BEYOND POINT OF DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED AGRICULTURAL LAND IN RURAL AREA OF BIHAR WHEREIN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT OV ER THE YEARS AND SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT FACTUAL MATTERS WHICH PERMEATE THROUGH MORE THAN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, IF THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED A PARTICULAR'S VI EW OR PROPOSITION IN THE PAST, IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE REVENUE TO TAKE A N ENTIRELY CONTRARY OR DIFFERENT STAND IN A LATER YEAR ON THE SAME ISSUE, INVOLVING IDENTICAL FACTS UNLESS AND UNTIL A COGENT CASE IS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF C HANGE IN 5 ITA NO. 79/RAN/18 SRI MANOJ KUMAR HUF 5 FACTS. FOR THAT WE RELY ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN RADHASOAMISATSANG VS. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT, STRICTLY SPEAKING, RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDIN GS. AGAIN, EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING A UNIT, WHAT IS DECIDED IN ONE YEAR MAY NOT APPLY IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR BUT WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE AL LOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. ON THESE REASONING, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL CHANGE JUSTIFYING THE REVENUE TO TAKE A DIFFER ENT VIEW OF THE MATTER - AND, IF THERE WAS NO CHANGE, IT WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE WE DO NOT THINK THE QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REOPENED AND CONTRARY TO WHAT HAD BEEN DECIDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME - TAX IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS, A DIFFERENT AND CONTRADICTORY STAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN.' WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ABOVE CITED PRECEDENT S ON PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER CONSIDERATION , AS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DECLARING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL IN PAS T YEARS AND THE SAME HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.20,52,600/ - SUSTAINED BY LD CIT(A). 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 - 0 2 - 2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( S. S. GODARA ) (DR. A.L.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22 - 0 2 - 2019 *PRADIP (SR.PS) 6 ITA NO. 79/RAN/18 SRI MANOJ KUMAR HUF 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. T HE ASSESSEE / ASSESSEE : S RI MANOJ KUMAR HUF 101 1 ST FLOOR, SHIV SAI TOWER, PHASE II, NEW MORABADI, RANCHI - 834008. 2 THE RESPONDENT/ REVENUE : THE DCIT, CIR - 2,RANCHI 3. THE CIT - , 4. THE CIT(A) - , 5. DR, RANCHI BENCHES, RANCHI TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR P.S ITAT, RANCHI BENCHES