PUSHPA SOHANLALJI FOMRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2134/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 December 2018AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its previous decision where it remitted a similar issue back to the AO. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with a copy of the VAO's statement and reconsider the agricultural income claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural income, which the Assessing Officer (AO) treated as undisclosed cash credit due to the land being categorized as 'punctured land'. The AO's decision was based on a statement from the Village Administrative Officer (VAO).

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural income claimed by the assessee is genuine, and if the AO's rejection based on VAO's statement without providing a copy to the assessee violates principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ (SMC

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]

For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh

आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH:-

1.

These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against an orders dated 17.05.2018 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Chennai. Grounds taken for all the years are common except for assessment year 2012-2013, where the ground assailing reopening of assessment is not here.

ITA No.2133 to 2136/18 :- 2 -: .

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the grievance of the assessee was on her claim of agricultural income, being disbelieved by the ld. Assessing Officer and being considered as undisclosed cash credit. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Assessing Officer had disbelieved the agricultural income shown by the assessee for the impugned assessment years for a reason that land from which such income was claimed by the assessee was categorized as ‘’punctured land’’ by the Tahsildar in the adangal records. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, similar addition was made by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment done for assessment year 2013-14 also. According to him, the matter had come up before the Tribunal and this Tribunal had remitted the issue back to the ld. Assessing Officer, so that assessee was given a copy of the statement recorded from Village Administrative Officer u/s.131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’). According to him, similar directions could be given for the impugned assessment years also.

Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly 3.

supported the orders of the lower authorities.

4.

We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Though the assessee has questioned the validity of the reopening in its appeals for assessment years 2009-

ITA No.2133 to 2136/18 :- 3 -: .

10 to 2011-12, ld. Authorised Representative did not prefer any arguments on such grounds. Accordingly, grounds assailing the reopening are dismissed as not argued. Coming to the question of agricultural income being considered as undisclosed cash credit, we find that similar agricultural income was claimed by the assessee from the very same land in assessment year 2013-14 also. In the said year also, such claim was disallowed and an addition was made as unexplained cash credit. When the matter reached this Tribunal, this Tribunal vide its decision dated 20.12.2017 in had held at para 6 as under:-

‘’6. I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, in this case, the owning of agricultural land is not disputed by the lower authorities. Further, it is also undisputed fact that in earlier years, the declared the agricultural income, which was accepted by the ld. Assessing Officer. But, only in this assessment year under consideration, the same income was not accepted as agricultural income. There was a statement recorded from VAO u/s.131 of the Act and principles of natural justice requires to provide proper opportunity to be given to the party to cross examine the submissions of the VAO, if such third party statements relied upon by A.O to complete the assessment. Hence, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to remit the entire issue to the file of ld. Assessing Officer to give copy of sworn statement recorded from VAO u/s.131 of the Act to assessee and also to consider the agricultural income declared by the assessee in earlier assessment years to come to conclusion for present assessment year on this issue. With this observation, I remit the issue to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for fresh consideration’’. Following the above decision of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that issue needs to be looked afresh by the ld. Assessing Officer for to 2136/18 :- 4 -: . the impugned assessment years also. We therefore set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the question regarding veracity of the claim of agricultural income back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer. Similar directions as given for assessment year 2013-14 are given herealso.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the assessment years are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 12th day of December, 2018, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 131

All 4,706 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →