SHRI RAMBIR SINGH, BHARATPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BHARATPUR

ITA 807/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7196 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUNI PAL JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 807/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 RAMBIR SINGH, S/O- SHRI HAR PRASAD, PUSHP VATIKA COLONY, NEAR SARAS HOTEL, BHARATPUR-321001 (RAJ) C UKE VS. I.T.O., WARD-3, BHARATPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA -@ PAN/GIR NO.: ANDPS 0475 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKS J LS @ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI RAJENDRA AGARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/09/2019 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/10/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/10/2017 OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- 1. CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,91,500/- TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ITA 807/JP/2018 RAMBIR SINGH VS ITO 2 2. NOT DELETING THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,35,000/- TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,35,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THE APPELLANT RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO AMEND, ADD, ALTER, CHANGE OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL, EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 2. THERE WAS A DEFECT OF NOT FILING OF THE APPEAL FEE, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REMOVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING AND ADJUDICATION. 3. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 16/08/2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,61,310/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 31,65,012/-. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FROM THE DETAILS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 42,20,016/- AND EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,55,004/-, THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 31,65,012/-. ON FURTHER QUERY, THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH RETAIL SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF RS. 5,91,500/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RETAIL SALE OF RS. 5,91,500/- IS TOWARDS SALE TO LOCAL VILLAGERS AND RELATIVES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ITA 807/JP/2018 RAMBIR SINGH VS ITO 3 IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED RETAIL SALE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 5,91,500/-, THE A.O. TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 4. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING 1.964 HECTARES OF IRRIGATED LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED A LAND MEASURING 0.498 HECTARE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 31,65,012/- AFTER CLAIMING EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10,55,004/- IS A NORMAL AND REASONABLE INCOME FROM SUCH LAND HOLDINGS. THE A.O. REJECTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ARBITRARY. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE RECORD REGARDING THE HOLDING OF THE LAND WHICH IS FERTILE AND IRRIGATED THEN THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE DENIED. IN RESPECT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SOHAN LAL JAIN VS ITO IN ITA NO. 2403 & 2579/JP/1994 AND CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED ON MERE SUSPICION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXCESSIVE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND. ITA 807/JP/2018 RAMBIR SINGH VS ITO 4 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXEMPT INCOME THEN ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE CORRECT AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 5,91,500/-. HENCE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID CLAIM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. SE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 31,65,012/- OUT OF THE GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 42,20,016/-. THE GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO COMPRISING OF RETAIL SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF RS. 5,91,500/-. THE REMAINING SALE WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GRAIN MARKET THROUGH THE GRAIN MERCHANTS. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE RETAIL SALE AND FILED THE DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS TOWARDS THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO THE VILLAGERS AND RELATIVES AND ALSO SALE OF CATTLE FEED TO THE LOCAL VILLAGERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS EVEN NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAIL OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ALLEGEDLY SOLD TO THE VILLAGERS AND RELATIVES. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE AS WELL AS EVEN QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE SALE OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, THE ITA 807/JP/2018 RAMBIR SINGH VS ITO 5 ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO CLAIM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 5,91,500/-. EVEN OTHERWISE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR OF RS. 12,90,690/- THEN THE INCOME WHICH IS ABOUT THREE TIMES OR MORE THAN 2 TIME OF THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR IS REQUIRED TO BE JUSTIFIED WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH CLAIMED THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE YEAR BUT I.E. ONLY 0.498 HECTARE, THUS THE SAID ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WOULD NOT RESULT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 2 TIMES OF THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR EVEN PRODUCED DETAILS OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OF THE ALLEGED RETAIL SALE TO THE LOCAL VILLAGERS AND RELATIVES, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS PROPER AND JUSTIFIED. 7. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 1,35,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PRODUCED WHICH WAS NOT FOUND TO BE THE AGRICULTURAL SALE OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE SALE OF WHEAT OF RS. 1,35,000/- ON 10/05/2012 TO ONE M/S BABA JAHARVEER TRADERS, KUMS, KHAIR, UP. THE A.O. ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO VERIFY THE SAID TRANSACTION. IN REPLY, THE PURCHASER ITA 807/JP/2018 RAMBIR SINGH VS ITO 6 HAS ACCEPTED THE PURCHASE OF WHEAT FROM THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 1,35,000/- BUT ON 10/05/2013, THUS THE A.O. HELD THAT THE SAID SALE PERTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2014-15 AND NOT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,35,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 8. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,35,000/- TOWARDS THE SALE OF WHEAT ON 10/05/2013 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HOWEVER, WHEN THE SALE ITSELF IS CONFIRMED BY THE PURCHASER AND THE ONLY MISTAKE IS REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME PERTAINS. ONCE THE A.O. HAS CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY AND THE SALE WAS FOUND TO BE GENUINE BUT IT PERTAINS TO THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THEN THE REDUCTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO LEAD TO THE ADDITION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNTIL AND UNLESS THE FACT IS VERIFIED FROM THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN CLAIMED THE SAME INCOME AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. ITA 807/JP/2018 RAMBIR SINGH VS ITO 7 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH OCTOBER, 2019. SD/- FOT; IKY JKO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18 TH OCTOBER, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAMBIR SINGH, BHARATPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD-3, BHARATPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 807/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR