SMT. MANJIT KAUR,MOHALI vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 249/CHANDI/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 April 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no incriminating material was found during the search. For assessment years where the time limit to issue notice under Section 143(2) had expired, no action could be taken by the Revenue. The documents produced regarding agriculture income were admissible, and the AO's treatment was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

A search and seizure operation was conducted, and notices under Section 153A were issued. The assessee filed returns declaring income and agriculture income. The AO assessed agriculture income as 'income from other sources' without allowing credit for it, citing the non-filing of a J-Form.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO can disregard declared agriculture income and treat it as income from other sources without incriminating material, especially when the time limit for issuing notices under Section 143(2) had expired. The admissibility and treatment of agriculture income based on supporting revenue documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 139(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Hearing: 27.03.2025Pronounced: 22.04.2025

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.

2.

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

3.

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.

4.

Appeal to the ld. CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee.

5.

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

6.

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.

7.

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →