Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI (Before Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)
ITA No. 375/Ran/16 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13
Jay Narayan Kumar Vs ACIT, Cir-1, Hazaribagh PAN: AJHPK6400E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant/assessee by : None appeared Respondent/department by : Shri Chandan Das, JCIT/ld.DR Date of Hearing : 11-01-2019 Date of Pronouncement: 05 -04-2019 ORDER PER BENCH: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 05-10-2016 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Hazaribagh, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) dated 31-03-2015.
At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasions. The learned Departmental Representative ( ld.DR) was present for the appellant revenue. In the absence of any appearance of the assesse, the appeal is being dispose of ex parte qua the assesse after hearing the ld. DR for the revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of ITAT Rules, 1963. Page1 3. Grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are as follows: 1 ITA No. 375/Ran/16 A.Y 2012-13 Jay Narayan Kumar
For that the order passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) is unjustified, arbitrary and without cogent basis. 2. For that Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 41,83,150/- as income from other sources, being nearly 86% of agriculture income of Rs.48,38,750/- disclosed by the appellant for rate purposes. The appellant owned ancestral agriculture lands and the agriculture income was always accepted in past and in future also. The explanations furnished and evidences filed by the appellant were not considered judiciously. Acceptance of only Rs 10000/- income as agriculture and discarding the explanation for rest, on conjectures and surmises is unjustified, arbitrary and without any basis. 3. For that the appellant was not required to maintain bill and vouchers and even the books of accounts in respect of agriculture income, under statutory provisions of the IT Act. As such Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in relying only upon the fact that the appellant did not produce the bills and vouchers and in not appreciating the other evidences produced/filed by the appellant. 4. For that Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating that Hon'ble apex court has held in many decisions that where an assessee furnishes reasonable explanation, there is no justification for accepting his explanation in part and discarding it in relation to rest. 5. For that without prejudice to above grounds, Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not telescoping the addition of brokerage income of Rs.2,61,222/- against the addition out of agriculture income. 6. For that Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court had given direction to charge interest u/s 234A & 2348 on the tax payable on returned income and not on the assessed income. Following the decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High court interest charged on assessed income is incorrect and direction be given to charged interest on the tax payable on returned income. 7. For that Ld. AO was unjustified in charging interest u/s 234C on Page2 the assessed income, beyond the statutory provisions of the IT Act.
2 ITA No. 375/Ran/16 A.Y 2012-13 Jay Narayan Kumar
For that other grounds, if any, will be taken up/ argued at the time of hearing. 4. Brief facts qua the issue are that the only issue raised in appeal is against denial of the agricultural income of the appellant to the extent of Rs. 41,83,150/- which the Assessing Officer has treated as income from other sources.
On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by AO. Aggrieved, the assesse is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that in the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant produced evidence for possession of agricultural land of 65.56 acres but did nut produce any evidence with regard to the agricultural activities and the sale of agricultural produce. This is exactly the reason why the Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of the appellant in the course of assessment proceedings. We note that the appellant earns a salary of Rs. 4,80,000/-, income from brokerage of Rs.6,09,517/- and an income of Rs.21,570/- from other sources. At the same time the appellant has claimed to have earned an amount of Rs.60,54,950/- from the sale of tomato, Rs.9,68,230/- from the sale of potato, Rs.8,20,560/- from the sale of peas, Rs.l 0, 18,388/- from the sale of cauliflower, Rs.1 ,63,740/- from the sale of' rice and Rs.1 0,35,000/- from the sale of brinjal.
Against such huge sale, not a single evidence was produced to substantiate the same. Moreover, against this sale, the appellant has also claimed expenses in the form of purchase of seeds of Rs.10,27,052/-, composite expenses of Rs.7,42,987/-, labour & wages of Rs.l 0,64,550/-, tractor hire charge of Rs.5,07,875/-, pump hire charge of Rs. 4,80,750/-, fertilizer of Rs.5,40,580/-, medicine of Rs.3,64,112/-, Page3 power & fuel of Rs. 3,14,212/- etc. Against these expenses, the appellant did not furnish even a single evidence in the form of at least the name and address of the 3 ITA No. 375/Ran/16 A.Y 2012-13 Jay Narayan Kumar
persons from whom seeds, fertilizer, medicine,' power & fuel, etc., were purchased. The appellant also failed to furnish any evidence for the labour and wages payment of such a huge amount of Rs.10,64,550/-.
We note that ld. CIT(A) denied the claim of the assesse basically on the reason that mere possession of an agricultural land per se cannot lead to a conclusion of an agricultural income. We note that AO has not disputed that assesse is not owner of agriculture land of 65.56 acres. We note that Co-ordinate Bench of Ranchi has held in many cases that agricultural income should be estimated at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- for one acre. That is, one acre earns Rs.1,00,000/- per year. Therefore, total addition of Rs. 41,83,150/- made by AO needs to be deleted. Total Agriculture Land of 65.56 acres earns Rs.65,56,000/- which is more than the addition made by AO, hence, we delete the addition of Rs.41,83,150/-.
In Ground No. 5 the assesse requested the Bench for the benefit of telescoping of brokerage income of Rs. 2,61,222/-. Since we have deleted the entire addition made by AO on account of agricultural income, therefore, the question of telescoping does not arise. We also direct the AO to charge interest u/s. 234A and 234B on the tax payable on returned income.
In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05-04-2019
Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. Godara) (Dr. A.L.Saini) Page4 Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 05-04-2019 4 ITA No. 375/Ran/16 A.Y 2012-13 Jay Narayan Kumar
*PRADIP (Sr.PS) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant/Assessee: Shri Jay Narayan Kumar, Edla, Simaria, Chatra-825103. 2 The Respondent/Department: The ACIT, Cir-I, H’bagh 3. The CIT-, 4. The CIT(A)-, 5. DR, Ranchi Benches, Ranchi True Copy, By order, Assistant Registrar /Senior P.S ITAT, Ranchi Benches
Page5 5 ITA No. 375/Ran/16 A.Y 2012-13 Jay Narayan Kumar