V. ARUMUGAPANDI, COIMBATORE V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

ITA 970/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6512 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.970/Chny/2020 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr.V.Arumugapandi, No.3/35A, Amman Nagar, Siruvani Nagar, Coimbatore-641 024. v. The Asst. Commissioner – of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore-641 018. [PAN:AMLPA 1246 R] (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by : None यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.M.Rajan, CIT सुनवाईक तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.08.2022 घोषणाक तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, dated 23.09.2020 pertaining to assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Common order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai - 34 dated 23.09.2020 in ITA Nos. 327 to 332/19-20 in so far as the issue contested in the present appeal pertaining to the above assessment year is contrary to law, facts and in the circumstances of the case. आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI ी महावीर िसंह, उपा , एवं डॉ। दीपक पी. रपोटे, लेखा सद के सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.970/Chny/2020 :: 2 :: 2. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that land was taken for lease for 10 years and the copy of the deed was produced along with chitta and adangal in the name of the land owners. As the owner have become aged and not in a position to maintain their land, the Appellant is a family of agricultural background agreed and raised some agricultural products from their land and sold the same to the market and earned some income as agricultural income. Hence this disallowance/ rejection is without proper justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to note that the Assessing officer rejected the claim mainly because the Appellant's name has not reflected in the Adangal extract. It is pertinent to note that the lessee's name will not appear in the Adangal as the owner of the land will not agree for the same. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the relevant facts were completely ignored despite such facts were brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer and further before him and ought to note that the findings of the Assessing Officer as well as CIT (Appeals) is incorrect both on facts and in law. 5. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining agricultural income on reaching irrelevant conclusions while sustaining such sum as agricultural income in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justifications. 6. The CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the Appellant was the individual fresh graduate from the college and not yet started any earnings of his own and looking for some jobs or hold to start any business of his own. As and when he gets an opportunity he was doing same real estate agents and mediator to some financial persons in the market and earning some amount as commission or interest. Hence he was not contributing anything to his family as he was living with his parents as a joint family and all expenses were borne by them. Hence no provision was made for drawing during that year only. Hence the disallowance/rejection is without appropriate justification. 7. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining inadequate drawing on reaching irrelevant conclusions while sustaining such sum as inadequate drawing in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justifications. 8. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that presumption of 'Income from Other Sources' is wholly unjustified and ought to have appreciated that in the absence of direct evidence, the sustenance of the said additions were wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and sustainable in law, thereby vitiating the findings in the impugned order. 9. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the explanations offered. 10. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessment completed after search was bad in law and in the absence of direct evidence coupled with wrong initiation of the proceedings would vitiate the consequential search assessment on various facts. 11. The impugned order and the assessment order 'is a non-speaking order merely confirms the demand that the Appellant has not offered any explanation and not objected to the additions is wholly unsustainable and would be nullity in law. 12. The CIT (Appeals) has merely reiterated the order of the Assessing Officer and has not dealt the issues independently by applying laws and the facts. 13. The CIT (Appeals) passed the impugned order without hearing the Appellant in violation of principles of natural justice would be nullity in law. 14. The appellant has reserve his right to- file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing of appeal. ITA No.970/Chny/2020 :: 3 :: 3. The assessee field an affidavit with a request to condone the delay. We find that the delay was mainly because of pandemic. Hence, delay in filing of the appeals is condoned. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is observed that these appeals were scheduled for hearing on multiple occasions i.e. on 28.03.2022, 23.05.2022, 06.07.2022 & 16.08.2022. None appeared on these dates. Therefore, these cases are decided based on the merits of the case with the help of ld.Departmental Representative (DR). 5. We have heard the ld.DR and perused the materials available on record. It is observed from the assessment order that the assessee had claimed Rs.2,23,732/- as agricultural income and claimed exemption for the same. The AO after analyzing the documents arrived at the conclusion that the income of Rs.2,23,732/- is not agricultural income. The Ld.CIT(A) has discussed the issue of agricultural income at length. It is observed that the assessee failed to prove that the assessee was having agricultural land and assessee has carried out agricultural activities. The Ld.CIT(A) has given categorical findings that the name of the assessee does not appear in ADANGAL extract neither as owner nor as cultivator. This fact is established by the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee’s name does not appear anywhere in the ADANGAL extract, which is the Revenue record. There is no reason to doubt the contents of the Revenue records. Therefore, it is obvious that the assessee cannot claim that he has carried out agricultural activities. In this back ground, we find no ITA No.970/Chny/2020 :: 4 :: reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). With reference to the inadequate withdrawals, the AO has made an addition of Rs.60,000/-. The Ld.CIT(A) has discussed at length the said issue. However, it is observed from the assessment order that the assessee had accepted the additions on account of inadequate withdrawals. Once accepted the addition, the assessee is not permitted to raise the issue before the Ld.CIT(A) and also assessee has not filed any document which will establish that he had not accepted the said addition. 6. The assessee has raised ground that sufficient opportunity was not granted and speaking order has not been passed by the AO and the Ld.CIT(A). We have perused the assessment order and the Ld.CIT(A)’s order. It is observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, sufficient opportunity was granted and they have tried to pass a speaking order. Therefore, this ground is dismissed. 7. In light of the above findings, we do not find any merits in the assessee’s grounds. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 16 th day of August, 2022, in Chennai. Sd/- (महावीर िसंह) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (डॉ। दीपक पी. रपोटे) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) लेखासद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.970/Chny/2020 :: 5 :: चे ई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 16 th August, 2022. TLN आदेशक ितिलिपअ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 4. आयकरआयु%/CIT 2. यथ /Respondent 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 3. आयकरआयु% (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड*फाईल/GF