DHANNA LAL YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 161 & 162/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke Dhanna Lal Yadav, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Village-Rajawas, Tehsil- Amer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGVPL 8210 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar & Miss Isha Kanungo (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 31/08/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 08/09/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. Both are the appeals filed by the assessee emanates from the two separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur dated 17/05/2016 and 13/06/2016 respectively for the A.Y. 2008-09. There was a delay of more than 200 days in filing the appeals, for which the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. 2. In the condonation application, the ld AR has submitted as under:

ITA 161 & 162/JP/2017_ 2 Dhanna Lal Yadav Vs ITO

“That the appellant assessee is an individual. The quantum appellate order passed by the Learned CIT(A) on 17.05.2016 was not received by the assessee. When a letter for recovery of demand was served to the assessee, assessee has come in our office then we were applied for the certified copy of order and filed appeal before your honour. The assessee is a farmer and the only source of income is agricultural income and illiterate also. In the circumstances it is submitted that it was because of the bonafide mistake on the part of my office that we did not inquire about the service of notice. The appeal could not be filed in time. It is submitted that for something which happened due to inadvertence and beyond the control. Hence it is the prayer of the assessee as well as of the counsel that the Hon’ble Bench may kindly condone the delay and admit the appeal.”

After hearing both the sides and in the interest of justice and equity,

the delay was condoned and the appeal was heard.

convenience and brevity, a common order is being passed.

In this appeal the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:

“1. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 45,000/- out of Rs. 85,000/-made by the Learned Assessing Officer by treated the 'agriculture income' as 'income from other sources'.

the Form No. 36, it is found that he was an illiterate persons also. However,

ITA 161 & 162/JP/2017_ 3 Dhanna Lal Yadav Vs ITO

at the time of hearing, it was also pleaded by the ld AR of the assessee that

the order of the ld. CIT(A) was not served upon the assessee. Only a

certified copy was received on 21/2/2017. The assessee has own

agricultural land which devolve from ancestral agricultural property. The

assessee was doing agricultural activity and also doing the labour work. A

Statement submitted by the assessee regarding the estimate of his income

for the past 6-7 years, herein it is claimed that savings from period of

financial year 2002-03 to 2007-08 was of Rs. 5.65 lacs and out of the

same, the investment was made in the purchase of the land. Since the

assessee was an illiterate person, the ld. CIT(A) should not have confirmed

the action of the Assessing Officer as the source of investment is explained

out of the agricultural income and wages received by the assessee during

the past 6-7 years. The ld AR has relied on the following case laws:

(i) CIT Vs. Devilalson (2001) 70 TTJ (JD) 24

In the absence of availability of any asset representing the agricultural income shown by assessee or any addition under s. 69C, such income could not be treated as income from other sources more so when the agricultural income shown by assessee as well as his brother from the same land has been accepted in subsequent years. Sri Pericherla Shivakumar Raiu.. ... vs Assessee on 4 July, 2013 (ii) (HYDERABAD BENCH "A". HYDERABAD) ITA No. 396/Hyd/2013 In our view, the CIT(A) not justified in restricting the agricultural income to Rs. 1,68,000/-, when he has accepted the fact that the assessee is owner of agricultural land and the agricultural land is

ITA 161 & 162/JP/2017_ 4 Dhanna Lal Yadav Vs ITO

situated in a well irrigated area the claim of agricultural income cannot be arbitrarily rejected or restricted without bringing material on record that income from agriculture from those land would be Rs. 1,68,000/-. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we direct the AO to treat the amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- as income from agriculture.

of the assessee and relied on the orders of the authorities below.

assessee was an agriculturist and also engaged in the labour work for

which wages were received. The income of the assessee was not taxable

hence, he was not filing the return of income. However, in compliance of

the notice U/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the

return of income was filed. During the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased 1/4th land in Khasra No. 88 to 93, 85/647 and 86

on 04/8/2007 and the assessee’s investment was of Rs. 3,53,758/-. The

assessee explained the source of investment from savings from agricultural

income and wages but the revenue authorities did not agree with him. The

assessee also declared agricultural income in the return of income at Rs.

85,000/-, for which also the Assessing Officer did not agree, ld. CIT(A)

accepted partly. The assessee has also claimed deduction U/s 54B of the

Act of Rs. 4,23,535/- and as per the Assessing Officer there was no

evidence submitted in this regard. I find that the assessee was owner of

ITA 161 & 162/JP/2017_ 5 Dhanna Lal Yadav Vs ITO

agricultural land of more than 4 bighas in his individual capacity. The ld.

CIT(A) has accepted the fact of agricultural income of assessee and

reduced the amount. The assessee has submitted Khasra, Girdawari and

other ownership documents and also the details regarding growing of the

crops in the agricultural land like Bajra, Mungfali, Wheat, Barley, Ranjka

and other crops. These facts were clear from the Khasra Girdawari report of

Patwari of village Devguda, Tehsil- Amer. Since the assessee was an

uneducated agriculturist. No bills and vouchers were maintained for

agricultural income and for wages. However, the evidence of ownership of

the land and evidence regarding the agricultural income were filed. These

facts establish that the assessee was having income from agricultural

operations. The authorities below were not justified in not accepting the

claim of assessee in this regard. Further, since the assessee got the land in

inheritance and he was engaged in the agricultural activities on his own

land and also doing the labour work in the villages and nearby towns by

way of that he was earning Rs. 8,000/- to 9,000/- per month. Therefore,

the estimates of savings submitted for 6-7 years prior to the investment in

the agricultural land of Rs. 3,53,758/- appears to be explained and

acceptable. Therefore, in my considered view, the addition sustained by the

ld. CIT(A) deserve to be deleted on both grounds. Therefore, considering

ITA 161 & 162/JP/2017_ 6 Dhanna Lal Yadav Vs ITO the totality and the facts and circumstances of the case, I allow the appeal

of the assessee on both the issues and direct to delete the addition.

In this appeal the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is void an initio deserves to be quashed. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 86,790/- U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” Since, I have deleted the addition in the quantum of appeal, therefore the

penalty levied and sustained U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act deserve to be

deleted.

Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08th September, 2017 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Dhanna Lal Yadav, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 7(3), Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 161 & 162/JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत