ITO, CHENNAI V. Pattu Jeeva, CHENNAI

ITA 880/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0965 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIDISHA KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: N MUTHUKUMARAN
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 880/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD XV(2), CHENNAI - 600 034 . (APPELLANT) V. SHRI PATTU JEEVA, NO.91, VARADARAJAPURAM MAIN RD., TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI - 600 018. PAN : ADDPJ 6471 C (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. VIDISHA KALRA, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N. MUTHUKUMA RAN, DATE OF HEARING : 17.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.01.2013 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, ITS GRIEVANC E IS THAT CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 30,65,100/-. 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE, HAVING AGRICULT URAL INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, HAD FILED HIS RETURN FOR IMPUGNED I.T.A. NO. 880/MDS/11 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 7.11.207 DECLARING AN INCOME OF ` 3,47,000/-. ASSESSEE WAS ALSO RECEIVING SHARE INCOME FROM ONE M /S SRI AMMAN SERVICES AND REMUNERATION FROM ONE M/S SRI AMMAN WI ND SYSTEMS (P) LTD. APART FROM THE ABOVE, ASSESSEE HAD ALSO C LAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 32,75,100/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FU RNISH EVIDENCE FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE FORM OF CHITTA AND A DANGAL. AS PER THE A.O., ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED SUCH CHITTA AND ADANGAL FOR THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AT SANKARAPURAM VILLAGE, UTTAM APALAYAM TALUK, TENI DISTRICT. AFTER GOING THROUGH SUCH CHITTA AND ADANGAL, ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT 53.94 ACRES OF LA ND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE KEPT DRY AND ONLY CULTIVATIONS WERE M AIZE IN 1.97 ACRES AND CEREAL IN 0.54 ACRES. DESPITE A LETTER A DDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE, IT SEEMS ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE A NY EVIDENCE FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE OR PROOF OF ANY AGRICULTUR AL ACTIVITY BEING CARRIED ON BY HIM. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OP INION THAT IN 1.97 ACRES OF MAIZE AND 0.54 ACRES OF CEREAL, ASSESSEE C OULD HAVE AT BEST EARNED AN INCOME OF ` 2,10,000/- ONLY. HE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 30,65,100/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A. NO. 880/MDS/11 3 3. IN HIS APPEAL BEFORE CIT(APPEALS), ARGUMENT OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE LAND WAS IN SANKARAPURAM AND ERASIBNGA PURAM VILLAGES, WHICH WERE WELL KNOWN FOR ITS AGRICULTURA L OPERATIONS. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THE INCOME DECLARED FROM AGR ICULTURE WAS ON THE BASIS OF MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. AS PER ASSESSEE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RELIED ON CHITTA AN D ADANGAL SUPPLIED BY PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE LAND, WHICH WAS N OT UPTO DATE AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM 53.94 ACRES OF LAND WAS NO T CONSIDERED. ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS HAVING 88.61 ACRES OF LAND AND EVEN AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE, THERE WERE STANDI NG CROPS IN SUCH LAND. ACCORDING TO HIM, IN THE DISTRICT OF TENI, W HERE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SITUATED, MINIMUM AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS WE RE GENERALLY IN THE ORDER OF ` 30,000/- TO ` 40,000/- PER ACRE. 4. LD. CIT(APPEALS) REQUIRED REMAND REPORT FROM ASS ESSING OFFICER. ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 17.1.2011, FURNISHED A SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE VILLAGE ADMINIS TRATIVE OFFICER (VAO) OF SANKARAPURAM VILLAGE ALONG WITH LETTER OF ITO, WARD I(1), THENI, WHO RECORDED SUCH SWORN STATEMENT. THIS WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE VAO REPORT I.T.A. NO. 880/MDS/11 4 SUPPORTED HIS CLAIM REGARDING OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS PROBABLE INCOME. LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THESE CONTENTI ONS. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE VAO HIMSELF DENIED STATING THAT THERE W ERE NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN THE SAID LAND. AS PER LD. CIT(APPEAL S), ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE EXTENT OF LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE COULD HAVE EARNE D AROUND ` 23,000/- TO 26,000/- PER ACRE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICUL TURAL OPERATIONS. FINALLY, HE FIXED SUCH AGRICULTURAL INCOME ` 24,000/- PER ACRE AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO CALCULATE THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME ACCORDINGLY FOR 88.61 ACRES OF LAND. 5. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED D.R., STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. CHITTA AND ADANGAL ORIGINALLY PRODUCED CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THERE WERE NO CULTIVATIONS IN 53.94 ACRES OF LAND. AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE BENCH R EQUIRED THE LEARNED D.R. TO PRODUCE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, WHICH WERE DULY PRODUCED. AS PER LEARNED D.R., IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS OF AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME EXCEPT FOR THE STATEMENT THAT THERE WERE AGRICULTUR AL OPERATIONS IN THE I.T.A. NO. 880/MDS/11 5 LAND. THE LAND WAS ADMITTEDLY DRY AND THEREFORE, C LAIM OF ` 24,000/- PER ACRE WAS NOT AT ALL ACCEPTABLE. 6. PER CONTRA, LEARNED A.R., STRONGLY SUPPORTING TH E ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 7.1.2011 FROM SHRI S. MURUGAVE L, VAO, CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GETTING AN YIELD OF ` 30,000/- TO ` 40,000/- PER ACRE. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT IS CLEAR F ROM THE SAME STATEMENT THAT ASSESSEE WAS OWING 53.94 ACRES IN HI S OWN NAME AND WAS HOLDING A POWER TO MAINTAIN 36.32 ACRES BELONGI NG TO SHRI PANDIA RAJAN. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EX TENT OF ` 24,000/- PER ACRE, WOULD BE UNJUSTIFIED. THE PROPERTY WAS L YING IN TENI DISTRICT, WHICH WAS WELL KNOWN FOR ITS AGRICULTURAL PROSPERIT Y. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAD TO BE CONFIRM ED. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS REQUIRED BY US, LEARNED D.R. HAD PRODUCED ASSESS MENT RECORDS. THE A.O. IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 2, HAS STA TED AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE CHITTA AND ADANGAL FO R HIS LANDS AT SANKARAPURAM VILLAGE, UTTAMAPALAYAM TA LUK, TENI DISTRICT. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS OF CHITTA AN D ADANGAL I.T.A. NO. 880/MDS/11 6 ISSUED BY THE VAO THAT THE LANDS PURCHASED BY THE A SSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF 5394 ACRES ARE KEPT DRY AND ONLY ON 1 .97 ACRES ARE CULTIVATED BY THE CROP MAIZE AND IN 0.54 ACRES SOME CEREAL IS CULTIVATED BY THE ASSESSEE . THOUGH THE A.O. HAD MENTIONED 5394 ACRES, OBVIOUSLY IT IS ONLY A MISTAKE AND THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND COULD B E ONLY 53.94 ACRES. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO A.O., THE LAND OF 53.94 ACRES WAS DRY AND THERE WAS CULTIVATION ONLY IN 2.51 ACRES. HOWEVER, ASSESSMENT RECORDS AS VERIFIED BY US, DOES NOT SHOW ON WHAT BA SIS A.O. HAD REACHED THIS CONCLUSION. AS AGAINST THIS, THERE IS A STATEMENT RECORDED FROM VAO OF SANKARAPURAM VILLAGE ON 7.1.20 11. IN SUCH STATEMENT, ANSWERS GIVEN BY THE VAO TO QUESTIONS 2 TO 5 ARE VERY RELEVANT AND THEREFORE, REPRODUCED HERE FOR BREVITY :- Q.2: YOU HAVE ISSUED A INCOME CERTIFICATE TO SHRI J EEVA ON 08.102010. KINDLY GIVE DETAILED INFORMATION ABOU T IT. ANS: THE ABOVE MENTIONED SHRI JEEVA IS RESIDING AT 91, VARADHARAJAPURAM MAIN ROAD, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI-18 . HE POSSESSES 88.61 ACRE AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RASINGAPURAM, DEVARAM AND SANKARAPURAM OF THENI DISTRICT OUT OF WHICH 59.69 ACRES IN THE NAME OF SHRI JEEVA AND 36.32 ACRES IN THE NAME OF SHRI PANDIA RAJAN. TOTALLY 96.01 ACRE IS THERE. SHRI JEEVA HAS OBTA INED POWER TO MAINTAIN SHRI PANDIARAJANS LAND CORN & SUGARCANE WERE THE PRODUCES FROM THE ABOVE MENTIO NED LAND. I HAVE SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF THE PATTA & CHITTA FOR THE SAME. SINCE THERE IS YIELD I HAD GIVEN A N INCOME I.T.A. NO. 880/MDS/11 7 CERTIFICATE STATING THAT APPROXIMATELY ` 30,000/- TO ` 40,000/- MAY BE EARNED OUT OF THE PRODUCE. Q.3: HAVE YOU GIVEN INCOME CERTIFICATE LIKE THIS F OR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07? ANS: F.Y FROM 2006-07 TO 2009-10 PERIOD I HAVE NOT ISSUED ANY INCOME CERTIFICATE. THE CERTIFICATE WHICH I HAD GIVEN DATED: 08.10.2010 IS FOR THE F.Y: 2010-11. Q.4: AS PER YOUR ANSWER FOR THE QUESTION NO.2, WAS THERE ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES HAPPENED? WHO WAS SUPERV ISING/ MAINTAINING THE SAME? WHAT ARE ALL THE DOCUMENT S MAINTAINED BY YOU FOR THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY DONE FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED LAND? ANS: SINCE I WORKED IN BODINAYAKKANUR, KOTTAKUDI V ILLAGE DURING 2006-07, I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER ANY AGRICUL TURAL ACTIVITIES HAPPENED OR NOT. WHO HAS DONE ALL THE DETAILS I DONT KNOW. SO WHEN SHRI JEEVA APPLIED FOR INCOM E CERTIFICATE I VERIFIED THE CURRENT YEAR DOCUMENTS AND ISSUED IT. THE DOCUMENTS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL AC TIVITY WILL BE SUBMITTED AFTER THE END OF THE F.Y TO THE TALU K OFFICE BY THE RESPECTIVE VAO WHO WORKED AT THAT PERIOD. Q.5: WITHOUT THE ADANGAL DOCUMENT HOW YOU DECIDE D THAT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY HAD HAPPENED FOR THE AB OVE MENTIONED LAND? ANS: I GAVE CERTIFICATE ON THE ABSIS OF ADANGAL DOCUMENT FOR THE F.Y: 2010-11, SO IT RELATES TO F.Y: 2010-11 O NLY. FOR 2007-08 THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED: 08.10.2010 WILL NOT BE RELEVANT FOR. ON THE BASIS OF THE LAND IN ACR ES AND THE PRODUCE, I ISSUED THE CERTIFICATE MENTIONING THAT THE INCOME MAY BE ` 30,000/- TO ` `` ` 40,000/- PER ANNUM. I.T.A. NO. 880/MDS/11 8 8. A READING OF THE ABOVE WILL CLEARLY SHOW THAT AS SESSEE INDEED WAS OWNING 59.69 ACRES OF LAND IN HIS NAME. NEVERT HELESS, THE VAO ALSO STATED THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE AGRICULTUR AL ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE THERE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. IN O UR OPINION, JUST BECAUSE AN ASSESSEE WAS OWNING A LAND OF 59.69 ACRE S, WOULD NOT MEAN THAT ASSESSEE WAS DERIVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME . IT IS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR AGRICULTURAL I NCOME. EVEN THE OATH STATEMENT FROM VAO, RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED A .R., DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER ASSESSEE WAS EARNING ANY INCOME DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. EVEN THE TYPE OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVI TIES CARRIED ON WAS ALSO NOT CLEAR. THERE IS AN OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION BETWEEN ORIGINAL VAO CERTIFICATE, WHICH IS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE RECO RD AND THE OATH STATEMENT OF VAO DATED 7.1.2011. IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES A FR ESH LOOK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO OBTAIN ORIGINAL VAO CERTIFICATE AND ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS AGRICULTURAL EARNINGS, IF ANY. WE, TH EREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT THE ISSUE BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW. I.T.A. NO. 880/MDS/11 9 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 24 TH OF JANUARY, 2013, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (V.DURGA RAO) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 24 TH JANUARY, 2013. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-XII, CHENNAI-34 (4) CIT, CHENNAI-X, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE