Jodh Singh, Kolkata V. ACIT, CC- XXIII, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITSSA 28/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8259 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJOY KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S L KOCHAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA ) BEFORE , /AND , . . ! ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI C. D. RAO, AM ] ( !' # '$ ) % / I.T(SS).A NOS.28/KOL/2012 &' () &' () &' () &' ()/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 JODH SINGH VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX, (PAN: AJVPS5033M) C.C. XXIII, KOLKATA. (,- /APPELLANT ) (./,-/ RESPONDENT ) & ( !' # '$ ) % / I.T(SS).A NOS.29/KOL/2012 &' () &' () &' () &' ()/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 RAJ KAUR VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, (PAN: AFCPK4493C) C.C. XXIII, KOLKATA. (,- /APPELLANT ) (./,-/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT: S/SHRI S. L. KOCHAR & ANIL KOCHAR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI AJOY KUMAR SINGH DATE OF HEARING: 05.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.07.2012 0 / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ( , , , , ) BOTH THESE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE ARISING OUT OF S EPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A), CENTRAL III, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NOS. 51, 52/CC-XXIII/CIT(A)C-III/ 09-10 DATED 08.11.2011. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY ACIT, CC-XXIII, KOLKATA U/S.153A/143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 2001-02 VIDE HIS SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 31.12.2008. 2. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE DELAYED BY 30 DAYS AND C ONDONATION PETITION DATED 5 TH MARCH, 2012 FILED BY ASSESSEES STATING THAT IT APPEARS THAT SRI S. L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, COULD N OT BE CONTACTED IN THE RIGHT TIME BY SRI KHANDELWAL OWNIN G TO SOME OTHER TAXATION MATTERS AND ALSO BECAUSE SRI S. L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, WAS NOT AVAILAB LE. ACCORDINGLY, SUBMISSION OF THE APPEAL 2 IT(SS)A 28 & 29/K/2012 JODH SINGH & RAJ KAUR A.Y. 01-02 HAS BEEN DELAYED BY ABOUT A MONTH FOR WHICH I MAKE THIS PETITION AND PRAY THAT THE DELAY MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED FOR WHICH I SHALL BE OBLIGED. WE FIND THAT THE REASONS STATED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE SAME AND LD. SR. DR HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. HENCE, CONSIDERING REASONABLE CAUSE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEALS. 3. THE ONLY COMMON ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEES IS AS REGARDS TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.86,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN EACH OF THE CASE. THE RELEVANT GROUND FROM THE CASE OF IT( SS)A NO.28/KOL/2012 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFI RMED THE ADDITION OF RS.86,200/- AS ASSESSABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IN FACT WA S AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HENCE EXEMPT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXACTL Y IDENTICAL. IT IS TO BE MENTIONED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN SET ASIDE BY TRIBUNAL IN IT A NO.357/KOL/2005 WHEREIN THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. IT APPEARS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOM DISALLOWED DUE TO NON SUBMISSION OF ANY EVIDE NCE BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, NOW THE APPELLANT HAS COME WITH THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR CONSIDERING T HE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND PRODUCTION OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS A FTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AS PER LAW. WE DIRECTLY ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. NOW BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED C OPIES OF LAND HOLDING WHEREBY IT IS PROVED THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE OWNING LAND ADMEASURING 48.13 ACRES AND THERE IS ALSO CERTIFICATE FROM REVENUE PATWARI THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IS REGULARLY CULTIVATED WHEREIN WHEAT AND MAIZ WERE SHOWN. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED TH AT ASSESSEE OWNS 48.13 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN PUBJAB AND HAS DISCLOSED RS.86,200/- AS AG RICULTURAL INCOME AND IF WE GO BY STANDARD ACRES REVENUE EARNED I.E. ABOUT RS.10,000/- IN FY 2 000-01 THAT WILL BE MUCH MORE THAN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE CIT(A) I N BOTH THE CASES I.E. AMOUNTING TO RS.86,200/- IN EACH OF THE CASE IS NOT REASONABLE, AND ACCORDING TO US, NO INTERFERENCE IN THE RETURNED INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE CAN BE DONE. IN S UCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ACCEPT THE RETURNED 3 IT(SS)A 28 & 29/K/2012 JODH SINGH & RAJ KAUR A.Y. 01-02 INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AT RS.86,200/- IN EACH OF T HE CASE AND ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES. BOTH THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- . . ! , (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! ! ! !) )) ) DATED: 5 TH JULY, 2012 12 &3' 4 JD.(SR.P.S.) 0 5 .6 7 6(8- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . ,- / APPELLANT SHRI JODH SINGH & SMT. RAJ KAUR, C/O S. L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 86, CANNING STRET, KOLKATA-1. 2 ./,- / RESPONDENT ACIT, CC-XXIII, KOLKATA. 3 . 0& ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 0& / CIT, KOLKATA 5 . ?@ .& / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA /6 ./ TRUE COPY, 0&A/ BY ORDER, ' /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .