Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण ,इ�दौर �यायपीठ ,इ�दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE �ी कुल भारत, �या�यक सद�य तथा �ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 1018/Ind/2016 �नधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt.Rajrani Johri, vs. Income-tax Officer, 1(1), 143, Happy Home Bhopal. Apartments, Opposite Patrakar Bhawan, Malviya Nagar, Bhopal अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��यथ� /Respondent �था.ले.सं./PAN: AAPPJ6281K
: Shri Ashish Goyal, अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant Adv. and Shri N. D. by Patwa, ITP : Shri K. G. Goyal, ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent Sr. DR by
: 26.04.2018. सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of hearing : 27.04.2018 उ�ोषणा क� तारीख/Date of pronouncement
-: 2 :- Smt. Rajrani Johri,Bhopal आदेश /O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M. : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld.
Commissioner of Income tax (A)-31, New Delhi, Camp at Bhopal,
dated 30.06.2016.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
The assessment order is invalid, barred by limitation,
illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio and therefore liable to be
quashed.
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the assessment order
which is invalid, barred by limitation, illegal, bad in law,
void-ab-initio and therefore, liable to be quashed.
The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the
addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as unexplained investment
and deposits in the saving bank account.
The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the
addition of Rs. 4,34,326/- as income from other sources,
disregarding the claim of the appellant of agricultural income.
-: 3 :- Smt. Rajrani Johri,Bhopal 3. At the out-set, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that
he does not wish to press ground nos. 1 & 2. Ground no. 1 & 2 are
dismissed as not pressed.
Ground no. 3 is against sustaining the addition of Rs. 10
lakhs as unexplained investment.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the case of the
assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment. While framing the
assessment, the AO noticed that there was cash deposit of Rs. 10
lakhs. The AO treated the same as unexplained cash deposit and
added the same. Further, the AO disallowed the claim of Rs.
4,34,326/- as income from other sources disregarding the claim of
the assessee of agricultural income. Aggrieved by this, the assessee
preferred this appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who after considering
the submissions, dismissed the appeal.
Apropos ground no.3, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee
submitted that the AIR information in respect of cash deposit in
saving bank account of assessee in excess of Rs. 10 lakh revealed
that there were cash deposits totalling to Rs.19,32,275/-in the
assessment year 2009-10. After considering the submissions and
-: 4 :- Smt. Rajrani Johri,Bhopal explanation furnished by the assessee,the cash deposit of Rs.10
lakh
was considered as unexplained by the AO. The assessee submitted
that the sum of Rs. 10 lakh was received in cash from Mohd. Ziya
Ullah Hasan being power of attorney holder of the Seller – Mohd.
Asim Quereshi & Smt. Mazida Bano. The Ld. Counsel for the
assessee submitted that the assessee entered into an agreement to
purchase an agricultural land admeasuring 57.33 acres at Gram
Chandanpur, Dist. Bhopal. The deal could not be materialized and
the cancellation deed dated 19.06.2008 signed by the assessee and
Mohd. Ziya Ullah Hasan was entered. The witness to the
cancellation deed were Shri Gulab Singh S/o Shri Hari Prasad and
Shri Sanjay Soni S/o Shri Ramesh Soni The Ld. Counsel for the
assessee submitted that the cash money of Rs. 10 lakh were
received from Mohd. Ziya Ullah Hassan which he has deposited in
bank account on 20.06.2008. The AO formed an opinion that the
cancellation deed was an afterthought and added the sum of Rs. 10
lakh being unexplained cash deposits. The Ld. Counsel for the
assessee contended that the assessee was not given an opportunity
to submit the documentary evidences for justifying the claim, such
-: 5 :- Smt. Rajrani Johri,Bhopal as affidavit from witness of cancellation agreement , namely, Shri
Gulab Singh and Shri Sanjay Soni.
The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of
the lower authorities. 8. We have considered the facts, rival submissions and perused
the material available on record. We find that the matter requires
examination of the documentary evidences. In the interest of
justice, we deem it proper to remand back the matter for verification
of the documents to the file of AO. The AO shall verify the same
and decide the matter afresh and also afford an opportunity of
being heard to the assessee.
Apropos ground no. 4, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee
submitted that the AO has not considered the expenses incurred by
the assessee to earn the substantial agricultural income which
perhaps the land lord with the meagre income could not have borne
or they might not have the required skills/equipments. The Ld.
Counsel for the assessee submitted that the meager income of the
landlord does not constitute a valid reason for treating the
agreement as well as the agricultural operations carried out as
bogus or non-genuine. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted
-: 6 :- Smt. Rajrani Johri,Bhopal that for the non-inclusion of the assessee’s name in the P-II form of
the Local Authorities, it was for the landlord to consider it
necessary or otherwise. As far as the assessee was considered, it
was not sine-quo-non for carrying out agricultural operations on
batai or contract. The reasons/objection of the AO being irrelevant
has no force. Regarding discrepancies/objection with regard to the
non appearance of soya bean crop in the P-II form, if the AO had
any doubt, the AO ought to have got the matter verified either by
making spot enquiries or through the Local Authorities concerned
before taking and adverse or perverse view on this account. The AO
did not consider the agricultural income which according to his
version ought to have been earned through the crops of Vipul,
Masoor, Alsi, Tiara etc. which appeared in the P-II form. The
assessee had produced evidences regarding agricultural operations
carried out alongwith expenses incurred therefor as also the mandi
receipts in support of the agricultural produces sold through them.
Copies of batai agreement, agricultural expenses, mandi receipts for
sale of agricultural produce and copy of P-II form were submitted.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that inspite of
submitting all these evidences, the AO treated the agricultural
-: 7 :- Smt. Rajrani Johri,Bhopal income of Rs. 4,34,326/- as income from undisclosed sources. The same may be deleted. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard. 10. We have considered the facts, rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the matter requires examination of the documentary evidences. In the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand back the matter for verification of the documents to the file of AO. The AO shall verify the same and decide the matter afresh and also afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the open court on 27.4.2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (मनीष बोरड) (कुल भारत) लेखा सद�य �या�यक सद�य (MANISH BORAD) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore; �दनांक Dated : 27/04/2018 CPU/SPS
-: 8 :- Smt. Rajrani Johri,Bhopal
Copy to: Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/Guard file. By order Private Secretary/DDO, Indore