Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]
ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM:
1. This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 07.10.2022 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other.
2. For that the appellate order dated 07.10.2022 in respect of AY 2016- 17 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ld. Appellate Authority, viz. ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts.
For that the order of assessment dated 30.12.2019 in respect of AY 2016-17 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Bijay Kumar Singh (HUF) Income Tax Act, 1961 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(2), Patna, is bad both in law and on facts.
4. For that the appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to put forth his contentions.
5. For that the order of the ld. assessing officer as well as the order of the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is based on presumption, surmises and conjectures.
6. For that the order of the ld. assessing officer as well as the order of the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is wholly perverse in as much as the same are contrary to and at variance with the materials available on record.
For that the ld. assessing officer as well as the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not giving credit to the various evidences placed by the appellant in respect of agricultural income, especially the agricultural Certificate issued by the Circle Officers the only authority to issue income certificate in respect of agricultural income in the State of Bihar.
For that the ld. assessing officer as well as the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not considering the reports of various Authorities, notwithstanding the fact that the ld assessing officer himself called upon them to submit their reports in respect of agricultural income of the appellant.
For that the ld. assessing officer, in a very arbitrary and whimsical manner and solely on the basis of estimation and surmise, held that the appellant had earned agricultural income to the tune of Rs.6,00,000, out of the agricultural income of Rs.15,00,000 as disclosed by the appellant in its return of income.
For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in holding that the appellant has not earned agricultural income to the tune of Rs.15,00,000 as disclosed by the appellant in its return of income.
For that the ld. assessing officer erred in holding that Rs.9,00,000 is Bijay Kumar Singh (HUF) undisclosed income, out of Rs.15,00,000 shown as agricultural income in the return by the appellant.
For that the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in upholding the order of assessment and reiterating the finding of the ld assessing officer, without considering the evidences forming part of the record, particularly the income certificates issued by the Circle Officers and other concerned authorities and the reports submitted by the Circle Officers and other concerned authorities before the ld assessing officer on account of the independent enquiry conducted by the ld assessing officer regarding the veracity of the income certificates and other evidences.
For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a HUF. The ld. AO on perusal of the return of income filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2016-17 noticed that assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The ld. AO in order to verify the genuineness of claim of agricultural income issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act after obtaining due approval of PCIT of Patna was issued to the assessee for submission of required information/documents in support of agricultural income but the assessee has failed to furnish the same. The ld. AO thereafter believed that the agricultural income claimed by assessee was not genuine and had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee through ITBA portal. In response to the same, assessee filed its return of income on 01.11.2018 and requested the AO to supply the reason recorded for initiation of proceedings and accordingly,
Bijay Kumar Singh (HUF) the ld. AO supplied the reasons for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the ld. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act for submission of details of sale receipts, expenses details in support of agricultural activities and name and complete address of the traders to whom agricultural produce was sold. However, assessee did not comply to the said notice issued by AO. The ld. AO try to obtain compliance from the assessee by issuing notice time to time but he did not succeed to get any reply from the assessee. The ld. AO also issued requisition u/s 133(6) calling information from the Circle Officer where the agricultural land situated. However, the Circle Officer issued certificate related to F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 whereas the assessment pertained to F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to A.Y. 2016-17. Therefore, the certificate could not certify income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The ld. AO further in order to determine the true income of the assessee. He further referred to the notice u/s 133(6) to the Project Director (Agriculture) where the assessee’s property was situated. In response to the said notice, Project Director had sent a letter to the AO. However, it did not determine the agricultural income for the year under consideration and had replied stating the fact that probability of agricultural income of the assessee. The ld. AO accordingly in absence of any documentary evidence carried out as in the case of assessee regarding agricultural operation income derived therefrom. Therefore, the claim of agricultural income has claimed by assessee of Rs. 15 lakh did not accept and treated the Bijay Kumar Singh (HUF) amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- as assessee’s agricultural income and had treated the balance amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- as assessee’s income from undisclosed income thereby adding to the income of the assessee.
3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Dissatisfied with the above order assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising multiple grounds of appeal. However, the main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. AO did not consider the income of the assessee properly by obtaining necessary information from the competent authority and on presumptive basis assessed the income of the assessee, therefore, it is necessary to remand back the whole issue to the file of AO in order to ascertain the correct income of the assessee.
We after hearing the rival submission of the parties and perused the material available on record feel it necessary to remand back the whole issue to the file of AO with a direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and it is necessary to obtain such information from the competent authority in order to ascertain the correct income of the assessee then he may call such report. The assessee is also directed to file supported
Bijay Kumar Singh (HUF) documents in order to substantiate its claim at the time of framing of the assessment order by the AO. In terms of the above, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.