DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyd, Hyderabad V. A.Niranjan Reddy, Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 880/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6342 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.880/HYD/2015 : ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-0 6 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD V/S SHRI A.NIRANJAN REDDY, HYDERABAD ( PAN AFCPA 1410 K ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION NO.43/HYD/2015 (IN ITA NO.880/HYD/2015) : ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 05-06 SHRI A.NIRANJAN REDDY, HYDERABAD ( PAN AFCPA 1410 K ) V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD (CROSS OBJECTOR) (APPELLANT - IN - APPEAL) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.V.RAGHURAM DEPARTMENT B Y : SHRI B.KURMI NAIDU DR DATE OF HEARING 13.6.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.7.2016 O R D E R IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE TAX EFFEC T IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO.21 DA TED 10.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE REQUESTED FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL. A CCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, TAX ON THE AMO UNT IN DISPUTE WORKS OUT TO RS.2,30,161. SINCE THE CIRCULAR ISSUE D BY THE BOARD IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE, WE PERMIT THE LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE TO WITHDRAW THIS APPEAL AND ACCORDI NGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ITA NO.880/HYD/2015 & CO THEREIN SHRI A.NIRANJAN REDDY, HYDERABAD 2 2. THE CROSS OBJECTION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,26,000 AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. FACTS CONCERNING THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE STAT ED IN BRIEF. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT O F RS.1,26,00 CLAIMED TO BE INCOME EARNED FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTI VITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DET AILS OF CROPS GROWN AND SOLD, NATURE OF FARMING METHOD, BILLS SUPPORTIN G SEEDS FERTILISERS ETC. SOURCE OF WATER, ELECTRICITY BILLS AND RECEIPT OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. HE WAS ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE PATTADAR PASS BOOKS SHOWING THE EXTENT OF LAND THE ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSION OF. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE, TH E ENTIRE AMOUNT IS TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE AND ADDED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A ) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ON A GRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE PAST SO MANY YEARS AND THUS THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CAR RIED ON ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT H E IS THE OWNER AND POSSESSOR OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND USED THE SAID LA ND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT A PATTADAR PASS -BOOK WAS FURNISHED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT PATTADAR PASS -BOOK WAS FURNISHED FOR THE FIRST TIME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR ADMISSION UNDER RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES. HE THEREFORE, SENT THE SAM E TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TURN SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF TOTAL LAND OF 8.38 ACRES OF WH ICH 8.36 ACRES IS ITA NO.880/HYD/2015 & CO THEREIN SHRI A.NIRANJAN REDDY, HYDERABAD 3 CULTIVABLE, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE CLAIM OF CARRYING ON AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH RELEVANT DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT MERE POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT SU FFICIENT TO PROVE THAT HE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELATING TO EXTENT OF CULTIVAT ION AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUS TIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INCOME DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE IS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS., HE THUS SUSTAINED TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED CROSS OBJECTION CHALLENGING THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,26,000 REFERABLE TO THE INCOME CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN EARNED FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. LEARNED COUNSEL FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIO NS WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNING AGRICULTURAL LA ND TO THE TUNE OF 11.28 ACRES AT RAVIRYAL, MAHESWARAM MANDAL, RANGA R EDDY DISTRICT AND THIS INFORMATION WAS SUPPLIED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE ALSO SUBMITS THAT MERELY BECAUSE T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IT CANNOT BE DOUBT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF AS SESSEES BROTHER, SHRI A.PANDURANGA REDDY, WHEREIN THE BENCH ESTIMATE D THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.10,000 PER ACRE (ITA NO. 797 TO 803/HYD/2015 DATED 20.1.2016). HE ALSO FURNISHED A COPY OF THE ITA NO.880/HYD/2015 & CO THEREIN SHRI A.NIRANJAN REDDY, HYDERABAD 4 PATTADAR PASS BOOK WHICH SHOWS THAT THE LAND HELD B Y THE ASSESSEE IS DRY LAND (METTA). 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT H AVING BEEN ALLOWED TO BE WITHDRAWN, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE. IN HIS OPINION, A RIGHT TO FILE A CROSS OBJECTION ARIS ES ONLY WHEN AN APPEAL IS FILED BY THE OTHER PARTY AND AS A NECESSARY CORO LLARY, IF THE RIGHT IS NOT EXERCISED BY THE OTHER PARTY IN THE FORM OF WIT HDRAWING ITS APPEAL, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CONSIDERING THE CROSS OBJE CTION INDEPENDENTLY. 9. ON MERITS OF THE ISSUE, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH LED TO THE ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY INCOME FROM AG RICULTURAL OPERATIONS. HE ADVERTED THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS CALLED UPON TO FURNISH DETAILS OF CROPS GROWN AND SOLD, NATURE OF FARMING METHOD, BILLS SUPPORTING PURCHASE OF SEEDS FERTILISERS ETC. SOURCE OF WATER, ELECTRICITY BILLS AND RECEIPT OF THE SALE OF AGRICU LTURAL PRODUCE. BUT NO DETAILS WHATSOEVER WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A). EXCEPT STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS 8.3 ACRES OF LAND, NO OTHER INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED; BUT FOR T HE FIRST TIME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT HE OWNS 1 1.3 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, AND THEREFORE, THE SAME NEED NOT BE ENTERTAINED. HE SUBMITTED THAT COPY OF PATTADAR PASS BOOK FILED DO ES NOT CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF THE PERIOD OF THE LAND HOLDING AND THE T IME OF ISSUE OF THE PASS BOOK, AND HENCE, IT CANNOT BE TAKEN AS THE B ASIS TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HOLDS THE AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE PRE VIOUS YEAR RELEVANT ITA NO.880/HYD/2015 & CO THEREIN SHRI A.NIRANJAN REDDY, HYDERABAD 5 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT EVEN AT THIS JUNCTURE, ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS OF CROPS GROWN, EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR PURCHASE OF PESTICIDES, S EEDS, ETC. AND COULD NOT SHOW ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT A SPECIFIC CR OP WAS GROWN AND IT WAS SOLD TO SPECIFIC PARTY, APART FROM THE FACT TH AT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE AREA OF THE LAND AS MENTIONED DURING THE RE MAND PROCEEDINGS AND AS NOTED IN THE PATTADAR PASS BOOK NOW FILED. IT WAS THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE CANNOT BE COMPAR ED WITH THAT OF HIS BROTHER, SHRI A.PANDURANGA REDDY. IN THE ASSES SEES BROTHERS CASE, DETAILS OF LAND PURCHASED, SOLD ETC. WERE PRO DUCED, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE LAND WAS UNDER IBRAHIMPATNAM MANDAL AND HI S BROTHER CLAIMED THAT HE HAS GROWN GRAPES, PADDY AND VEGETAB LES, WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE, SHRI NIRANJAN REDD Y, DID NOT FURNISH ANY MATERIAL NOR EVEN CLAIMED THAT HE HAS GROWN A P ARTICULAR CROP. 10. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES BROTHER, SHRI A.PANDURANGA REDDY, THE DATES OF PURCHASE OF LAND, TYPE OF LAND AND THE CROPS GROWN THEREON WERE FURNISHED, BUT SINCE THE EXACT QUANTUM OF CROPS WAS NOT ESTABLISHED, THE TRIBUNAL ESTIMATE D THE INCOME IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSES SEE, WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF SHRI NIRANJAN REDDY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS TO THE NATURE OF THE CROPS GROWN, THE DAT E OF PURCHASE OF LAND, ETC. EVEN THE PATTADAR PASS BOOKS DOES NOT I NDICATE AS TO WHEN THE LAND WAS PURCHASED. ACCORDING TO THE REMAND RE PORT, THE LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY 8.38 ACRES, WHEREAS A CCORDING TO THE PATTADAR PASS BOOK FURNISHED BEFORE THE BENCH, THE TOTAL EXTENT OF LAND IS 11.28 ACRES AND THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE NATURE OF THE LAND IS DRY ITA NO.880/HYD/2015 & CO THEREIN SHRI A.NIRANJAN REDDY, HYDERABAD 6 LAND. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO INDICATE THE DETAILS OF CROPS GROWN. IF THE ASSESSEE OWNS 11 ACRES OF LAND FOR C ULTIVATION OF DRY LAND, IT NEEDS SUFFICIENT WATER, FOR WHICH THE MOTO R WOULD HAVE BEEN USED, BUT DESPITE CALLING FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS SUCH AS ELECTRICITY BILLS, PARTICULARS OF THE PURCHASE OF FERTILIZERS, SEEDS, ETC., NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS FILED AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING S. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITIO N SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 11. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. TO SUM UP, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS CR OSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JULY, 2016. SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT DT/- 15 TH JULY, 2016 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI A.NIRANJAN REDDY, C/O. SHRI K.VASANT KUMAR & S HRI A.V.RAGHU RAM, ADVOCATES, 610 BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 001. 2. 3 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CE N T RAL CIRCLE 3(1) , HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VI , HYDERABAD 4. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (CENTRAL) , HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S.