Amar Singh Saharan, Churu V. ITO, Ward-2, Churu

ITA 83/JODH/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6762 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAJAL SINGH J
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Application of stay; Additional evidence
• Section: 192; 13; 22; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 83/JODH/2020 & SA NO. 05/JODH/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 83/JODH/2020) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) AMAR SINGH SAHARAN, S/O-SHRI CHIMNA RAM, DHANI-ASHA, TEHSIL-TARANAGAR, CHURU. VS . I.T.O. WARD 2, CHURU. PAN NO. DRBPS 4493 E ASSESSEE BY SHRI SURESH OJHA, ADV. REVENUE BY MISS. KAJAL SINGH, JCIT-DR DATE OF HEARING 09/08/2021 DATE OF PR ONOUNCEMENT 07 /09 /2021 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. BOTH, I.E. STAY APPLICATION AS WELL AS INCOME TAX APPEAL ARE FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY BEFORE THE ITAT. WITH THE CONSENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS LD. DR OF THE REVENUE, BOTH I.E. THE S.A. AND THE APPEAL ITSELF ARE TAKEN FOR HEARING. 2. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. 3. FIRSTLY, WE TAKE ITA NO. 83/JODH/2020 FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE BECAUSE ONCE THE INCOME TAX APPEAL IS BEING DECIDED THEN S.A. WHICH IS ARISEN FROM 2 ITA 83/JODH/2020 AMAR SINGH SAHARAN VS ITO INCOME TAX APPEAL, WILL AUTOMATICALLY DECIDE. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 04/06/2019 FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE LAW. 2. THAT THE ORDER IS ILLEGAL IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FAILS TO CROSS EXAMINE THE DEPONENT OF THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF M/S MEHTA PAREKH & CO., THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. 4. THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) COMMITTED THE LEGAL MISTAKE IN RESPECT OF MAKING/SUSTAINING THE ADDITION WHEN THE PROOF OF PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION WAS MADE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED DURING THE YEAR IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 5. THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS EXPLAINED BUT REJECTED WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. 6. THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 OF IT ACT IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE LAW AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IS ILLEGAL. 7. THAT THE CHARGING OF INTEREST IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE LAW. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS. 8,17,000/- IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THEREAFTER, AFTER TAKING NECESSARY APPROVAL NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT) WAS ISSUED AND DULY SERVED UPON 3 ITA 83/JODH/2020 AMAR SINGH SAHARAN VS ITO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 16/08/2017. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 2,72,120/-. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH OF INVESTMENT MADE AT RS. 8,17,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT HE INVESTED RS. 8,17,000/- OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, KCC LOAN. FINALLY THE ASSESSEE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT ON 21/09/2017 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS. 4,00,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND RS. 2,72,128/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, GIVEN PART RELIEF OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/-. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 7. ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE INTERRELATED AND INTERCONNECTED AND THE ASSESSEE IS BASICALLY AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND ALSO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/-. 4 ITA 83/JODH/2020 AMAR SINGH SAHARAN VS ITO 8. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. FROM PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE OBSERVED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147 OF THE ACT WAS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS. 5,17,000/- INVESTMENT MADE IN ONE PIECE OF LAND. THE LD. AR ALSO HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING REGARDING INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, INVESTIGATION. HE EXPRESSED THAT THE DIRECTOR GENERAL HAD DIRECTED AND ON HIS DIRECTION, ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT, ACCORDING TO THE OPINION OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WAS ALLEGED TO BE UNEXPLAINED AND IS OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 9. NOW THE QUESTION AROSE FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- IS CONCERNED. THE LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE BENCH AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO.1, IT IS STATED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING REASONS THE ORDER IS ILLEGAL:- 5 ITA 83/JODH/2020 AMAR SINGH SAHARAN VS ITO AS FAR AS THE ILLEGALITY IS CONCERNED I WANT TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE COPY OF BALANCE SHEET WAS SUBMITTED. MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING AS WELL AS ALSO MENTION IN THE CASH FLOW CHART BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. THE DOCUMENT IS AT PAGE 8 AND 28 OF PAPER BOOK .THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON IS ILLEGAL. FURTHERMORE WITHOUT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. IN THIS RESPECT YOUR KIND ATTENTION IS INVITED TO ASK THE ORDER OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN FOLLOWING CASE AND ALSO REPRODUCING RELEVANT PORTION THEREOF. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MEWAR TEXTILESMILLS LTD. ITAT, JAIPUR A.M.ITA NOS. 2018 & 2019/JP;1991: ASST. YRS. 1984-85 & 1985-86 THE AO NOWHERE HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF S. 145(1) AND IF PROVISIONS ARE NOT INVOKED THEN THE ESTIMATE OF PROFIT IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. NO DEFECT OF ANY KIND WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO. 6.1. IN CASE OF R. B. BANSHILAL ABIRCHAND SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS VS. CIT (SUPRA) AT 282 THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT : 'THE OFFICER'S RIGHT UNDER THE PROVISO TO S. 13 ARISES ONLY AFTER A FINDING IS RECORDED AS TO THE UNACCEPTABILITY OF THE METHOD AND IRREGULARITY OF THE ACCOUNTS KEPT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A FINDING RECORDED BY THE AUTHORITIES, THE BOOK RESULTS CANNOT BE IGNORED OR BRUSHED ASIDE. THE MERE FACT THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF DEAD LOSS OF COTTON IS HIGH IN A PARTICULAR YEAR CANNOT LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT THEREBY THERE HAS BEEN A SUPPRESSION OF THE PRODUCTION IN A SPINNING MILL. 6 ITA 83/JODH/2020 AMAR SINGH SAHARAN VS ITO ON THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.2. IN CASE OF CIT VS. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. (1991) 192 ITR 565 (RAJ), THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT SINCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAD NOT BEEN REJECTED, THE MERE FACT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A FALL IN THE G.P. RATE WOULD NOT LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAD BEEN INFLATED. 6.3. IN CASE OF CIT VS. PADAMCHAND RAM GOPAL (1970) 76 ITR 719 (SC), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT REJECTED. 6.4. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THE OTHER CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND WE FIND THAT THE BOOK RESULTS CANNOT BE IGNORED IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT REJECTED OR ANY DEFECT WERE NOT POINTED OUT BY THE AO. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A). ON THE REASONS GIVEN BY CIT (A) AND ON THE REASONS GIVEN HERE BY US, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED HERE BY US. THE ABOVE ORDER IS APPLICABLE IN TOTO . THE ORDER IS ORDER OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RUPEES TWO LACS WERE GIVEN IN THE LAST YEAR THAT IS AY 2012-13 AND THE AMOUNT BELONGS TO LAST YEAR CANNOT BE TREATED IN ANY WAY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . IN THIS FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE SUSTAINING OF ADDITION OF RUPEES 2 LACS IS ILLEGAL. YOU ARE THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. AS REGARDS THE GROUND NO.2, 7 ITA 83/JODH/2020 AMAR SINGH SAHARAN VS ITO IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION ALSO SUBMITTED IN AFFIDAVIT THE DOCUMENT IS AT PAGE 5 OF PAPER BOOK STATING FULL FACT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS JAIPUR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS FORWARDED THE SUBMISSION TO BE INCOME TAX OFFICER FOR COMMENTS. THE REMAND REPORT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. COPY OF REMAND REPORT IS AT PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND AFFIDAVIT IS AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE COVERING LETTER YOU WILL OBSERVE THAT IN THE SAID SUBMISSION IT HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT AN AFFIDAVIT IS BEEN ATTACHED TO THIS EFFECT. THE AFFIDAVIT IS SELF-SPEAKING IN THIS RESPECT. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AN AFFIDAVIT IF SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITY IN THAT CASE CONTENTION THEREOF HAS TO BE ACCEPTED IF THE DEPONENT IS NOT CROSS-EXAMINE IN. THIS CASE NEITHER THE CIT (A) NOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF REMAND REPORT CROSS EXAMINE THE DEPONENT. THIS FACT IS ON RECORD. WHEN THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVIT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILS TO EXAMINE THE DEPONENT IN THAT CASE IT SHALL BE PRESUMED THAT CONTENTS MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY HIM. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 30 ITR PAGE 181 IN CASE OF MEHTA PAREKH AND COMPANY IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DEPONENT IS NOT CROSS EXAMINED CONTENTS THEREOF HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INVARIABLY ACCEPT THE SAME. IN CASE OF DR. PRAKASH RATHI REPORTED IN 36 TAX WORLD PAGE 1 THE HON'BLE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR (JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL) ACCEPTED THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILS TO CROSS EXAMINE THE DEPONENT, THE FACT MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT CANNOT BE DISCARDED. IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONFRONTED AND AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED THEREFORE THE ADDITION IS ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL. 8 ITA 83/JODH/2020 AMAR SINGH SAHARAN VS ITO AS REGARDS GROUND NUMBER 3 IT IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SUMMARY PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL; THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED BY ADOPTING THE MODE OF CUT AND PASTE AND EVEN IGNORING THE BINDING NATURE JUDGMENT OF EVEN SUPREME COURT. IT WILL BE WORTHWHILE TO SUBMIT AND DRAW YOUR ATTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY STATED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED BEFORE THE A.D.I. THAT HE IS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO PRODUCE THE BALANCE SHEET THEREOF BEFORE THE ADI AND CIT(A). THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE IS AT PAGE 14 TO 16 AND THE VERSION IN RESPECT OF MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS IS AT PAGE 20 OF THE SAID STATEMENT. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE BEING MAINTAINED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FOLLOW THE SAME REASON BEST KNOWN TO HIM. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET YOU WILL OBSERVE THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- AS ADVANCE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER FAILS TO ACCEPT THE SAME WHEN BALANCE SHEET WAS THERE. THE COPIES OF BALANCE SHEETS FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31ST MARCH 2011, 31ST MARCH 2012 AND 31ST MARCH 2013 ARE BEING ATTACHED IN PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO 14 TO 16. AS FAR AS THE SAVINGS IS CONCERNED THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY EVEN IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED BEFORE A.D.I. ALSO STATED THAT HE IS HAVING NO INCOME OTHER THAN THE AGRICULTURE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CASH FLOW WHICH IS PAGE AT 8, IN WHICH DETAILS HAS BEEN GIVEN BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT CONSIDER THE SAME WITHOUT ASSIGNING A REASON. THE EXPLANATION WAS REJECTED JUST FOR THE SAKE OF REJECTION. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY ACCEPT THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO REQUESTED THAT A SUM OF RUPEES 2,00,000/- MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDER AS PAID IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE 9 ITA 83/JODH/2020 AMAR SINGH SAHARAN VS ITO SHEET. THE HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT IN A DISPUTE THE CULTIVATION IS NOT IN A DISPUTE BUT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER REASON BEST KNOWN TO HIM NOT ACCEPTING THE AMOUNT IN THE QUESTION NO. 16. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED IN RESPECT OF INCOME. THE DOCUMENT IS AT PAGE 28 OF PAPER BOOK THE RELEVANT PORTION OF QUESTION AND ANSWER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER. AS REGARDS GROUND NUMBER 4 IT IS STATED THAT THE SUBMISSION HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE ARGUMENT OF EARLIER GROUND. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE BEING MAINTAINED AND IT WAS ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT WHICH IS AT PAGE 22 AND ALSO SUBMITTED BALANCE SHEET WHICH ARE AT PAGE 1416, AS PER THE LAW THE INVESTMENT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME 10 ITA 83/JODH/2020 AMAR SINGH SAHARAN VS ITO OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. NO LAW OF LAND IS PERMEATING BUT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS AS WELL AS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER COMMITTED MISTAKE IN THE LAW YOU ARE THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT ORDER PASSED MAY KINDLY BE DECLARED AS ILLEGAL. ADDITION OF RS. 2, 00,000 SUSTAIN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS ALSO WITHOUT ANY BASES. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE SOURCE THEREFORE EVEN OTHERWISE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IS EXPLAINED. YOU ARE THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER MAY KINDLY BE DECLARED AS ILLEGAL. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. FROM PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE AT PARA 6.3 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS AS UNDER: 6.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSION AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE AIR OF THE APPELLANT, REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REJOINDER FILED BY THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.4,00,000/- MAKING DETAIL OBSERVATION THAT THE APPELLANT PRODUCE THE JAMABANDI AND GIRDAWARI BUT NO BILLS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ARE PRODUCED. IN SUPPORT TO HIS CLAIM OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A PAGE GIVING HEAD PAYMENT, INCOME, LOAN AND SAVING ACCOUNT ON A WHITE PAPER AND APART FROM THIS PRODUCED NOTHING TO HIS SUPPORT. IN VIEW OF THIS IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS CROOKED STORY WRITTEN 11 ITA 83/JODH/2020 AMAR SINGH SAHARAN VS ITO ONLY ON WHITE PAPER. HOWEVER, BENEFIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, KCC LOAN IS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4 17 LAKH. THE AIR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS HAVING ONLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE IS HAVING AGRICULTURE LAND 60 BIGHA. THIS FACT IS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT APPELLANT PRODUCE THE JAMABANDI AND GIRDAWARI ONLY BUT NO BILL OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCED/CROP WERE PRODUCED. ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF NOT FURNISHING THE SALE BILL THE REJECTION OF AGRICULTURE INCOME IS ILLEGAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION WHICH WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY HIM INCLUDING THE COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS THAT IS FOR ASSESSMENT 2011-12 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ETC. I PERUSED THE RECORD I FIND THAT THE COPY OF BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT ARE NOT RELIABLE BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT PART OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS IS FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS HAVING AN AGRICULTURE LAND OF 60 BIGHA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ADMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT PRODUCE THE JAMABANDI AND GIRDAWARI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY DISPUTED THE SALES BILLS WAS NOT PRODUCE BY THE APPELLANT. THIS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT IN THE EYES OF LAW BECAUSE IN THE RURAL AREA THE CROPS WAS SALES IN VILLAGE AND SOMETIME CROPS SALES IN MANDI BUT BILLS WAS NOT KEPT BY THE FARMERS. THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE LAND HOLDING AND STATUS OF THE APPELLANT I ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF RS.6,17,000/- OUT OF KVC LOAN AND AGRICULTURE INCOME. ACCORDINGLY I CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,00,000/- IS DELETED. THESE GROUNDS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. WE OBSERVED FROM PERUSAL OF THE RECORD THAT THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF RS. 4,00 LACS BY MAKING DETAILED OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE JAMABANDI AND GIRDAWARI BUT NO BILLS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCTS 12 ITA 83/JODH/2020 AMAR SINGH SAHARAN VS ITO WERE PRODUCED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A PAGE GIVING HEAD PAYMENT, INCOME, LOAN AND SAVING ACCOUNT ON A WHILE PAPER AND PART FROM THIS, NOTHING HAS BEEN FILED WITH REGARD TO HIS CLAIM. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT WAS CLEAR THAT IT WAS A COOKED STORY WRITTEN ONLY A WHITE PAPER. HOWEVER, BENEFIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, KCC LOAN IS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4.17 LAKH. IT IS A TRUE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING 60 BIGHA OF LAND. THIS FACT IS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE PRODUCED JAMABANDI AND GIRDAWARI ONLY BUT NO BILL OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCED/CROP WERE PRODUCED. THE A.O. ONLY DISPUTED THE SALES BILLS WAS NOT PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS OBJECTION OF THE A.O. WAS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE IN THE RURAL AREA THE CROPS WAS SALES IN VILLAGE AND SOMETIME CROPS SALES IN MANDI BUT BILLS WAS NOT KEPT BY THE FARMERS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD GIVEN RELIEF OF RS. 2,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER DISCUSSING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. NO NEW FACTS HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 13. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 13 ITA 83/JODH/2020 AMAR SINGH SAHARAN VS ITO 14. WE DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE S.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR DATED 07/09/2021 *RANJAN COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 83/JODH/2020 & SA 05/JODH/2020) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR JODHPUR BENCH