Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and seizure operation was conducted, and notices under Section 153A were issued. The assessee filed returns, but the AO made additions for agriculture income, disallowing its treatment as such and assessing it as income from other sources, primarily because a J-Form was not filed. The CIT(A) provided no relief.
Held
The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search, and for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 and 2017-18, the time limit to issue notices under Section 143(2) had expired. For assessment year 2018-19, documents like 'Jamabandi' and 'Khasra Girdawari' were produced, which are admissible as evidence and presume truth. Therefore, the AO's action was not sustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO on account of agriculture income were justified, especially when no incriminating material was found and the limitation period for issuing notices had expired for some years.
Sections Cited
132, 153A, 139(1), 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The present five appeals are directed at the instance of the assessee against the common order of ld. CIT(A) dated 28.02.2023 passed for assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 and 2017-18, 2018-19 respectively.
The facts on vital points are common, therefore, for the facility of reference, we take facts from ITA 245/CHD/2019 for assessment year 2013-14. to 249/CHD/2023 A.Y.2013-14 to 2015-16 & 2017-18, 2018-19 2
A search & seizure operation was carried out at M/s Bajwa Group of cases on 13.02.2019. The case of the assessee was also covered under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The AO, thereafter issued notices under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act on 15.01.2020. In response to these notices, assessee has filed her return of income declaring same income which was filed by her under Section 139(1) of the Act. We deem it pertinent to take note of these details. It emerges out that assessee has filed return of income on 30.03.2014, 31.03.2015, 31.03.2016, 30.03.2018 and 31.03.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 10,30,570/-, 8,67,990/-, 8,94,260/-, 9,34,040/- and 9,11,120/- in assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. The Department was unable to lay its hand on any incriminating material, however it has made addition of agriculture income declared by the assessee. A perusal of the record would indicate that assessee has declared agriculture income at Rs.4 lacs in assessment year 2013-14 to 2015-16 and in 2017-18 such income was declared at Rs.60,000/-. Similarly, in assessment year to 249/CHD/2023 A.Y.2013-14 to 2015-16 & 2017-18, 2018-19 3 2018-19 it was declared as Rs.60,000/-. The AO did not allow treatment to this agriculture income and assessed it as 'income from other sources'. The only reason assigned by him is that assessee did not file J-Form.
Appeal to the ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee.
With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It is pertinent to note that no incriminating material was found during the course of search. The search was carried out on 13.02.2019. The time limit to issue notice under Section 143(2) for scrutinizing the returns of the assessee was over in assessment year 2013-14 to 2015-16 and 2017-18. Therefore, no action could be taken by the Revenue in these assessment years unless any incriminating material was found. To this extent, issue in dispute is squarely covered by the latest decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. 454 ITR 212. to 249/CHD/2023 A.Y.2013-14 to 2015-16 & 2017-18, 2018-19 4
As far as assessment year 2018-19 is concerned, assessee has declared agriculture income of Rs.65,000/-.
She was possessing 64 kanal 15 marla of agriculture land.
Even if the AO has taken an estimated opinion, then also he should not have disbelieved the version of the assessee.
The assessee has produced copies of ‘Jamabandi’ alongwith ‘Khasra Girdawari’ and these documents were prepared by the State Revenue officials of Punjab during their ordinary course of duty. These documents are otherwise per-se admissible in evidence because a presumption of truth is attached with them. The simple reason for this is that these documents are contemplated under the Punjab Land Revenue Act and they are being maintained by the Revenue officials of the Punjab Government. Therefore, on the strength of this Revenue record, an estimated view of agriculture income ought to have been taken before giving credit of agriculture income at Rs.65,000/-. The treatment given by the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we delete the addition in all these five years and direct the AO to treat to 249/CHD/2023 A.Y.2013-14 to 2015-16 & 2017-18, 2018-19 5 alleged agriculture income declared by the assessee as agriculture income only.
In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed.