Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA
PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.03.2015 of CIT(A)- 18, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2011-12.
This appeal was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal for non-appearance.
Subsequently, the Tribunal vide order dated 27.07.2016 recalled its earlier order. Hence, this is a recalled order.
Ground No.1 being general in nature is dismissed.
Ground No.2 by the assessee reads as under :- “2. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified by upholding the order of AO on the addition of Rs.332853/- as agricultural income is taxable without appreciating evidence i.e. the ownership of the land, details of kharna and khatoni, details of crop, sale bills are already on the record and moreover the agricultural income on the same land has been assessed regularly as exempt income in the last so many years.”
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 30.07.2011 declaring net income of Rs.4,60,950/-.
During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.3,32,853/-. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain such agricultural income. The assessee in her response submitted that the assessee owns land in Village ‘Bykere’ at the following address :- ‘Bykere Village’, Bykere Post, Kasaba Hobli, Sakleshpur Taluk, Hassan Distt.
The assessee also submitted the copy of ‘Crop Certificate’ issued by the Village Accountant. It was accordingly argued that the agricultural income taken by the assessee should be accepted.
However, the Assessing Officer rejected such agricultural income on the ground that the assessee could not satisfactorily explain the receipt of such agricultural income.
6.1 Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the same argument as made before the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activity for the last so many years and duly showing this in her IT Returns. The assessee has filed crop certificate and affidavit in support of land holding and a certificate of village accountant of coffee land was also filed.
6.2 However, ld. CIT(A) also was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he observed that the assessee could not give any evidence in support of the ownership of the land and evidence in support of sale of agricultural produce.
According to the ld. CIT(A) if the assessee is continuously engaged in the agricultural activity, the documents should be readily available with the assessee. Since the assessee failed to substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction, he upheld the action of the Assessing Officer tracking the agricultural income as income from other sources.
Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Ld. counsel for the assessee referring to various pages of the Paper Book submitted that the assessee is showing agricultural income continuously. For assessment year 2010-11, the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs.3,26,326 (page 14 and 20). Similarly, for assessment year 2012-13 it has been shown at Rs.3,80,844/- as per Paper Book page 22. For assessment year 2013-14, the same has been shown at Rs.4,10,530/- (page 24). The same has been shown at Rs.4,20,368/- for assessment year 2014-15 (page 26). He submitted that even though the Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of the agricultural income for the impugned assessment year, however, the income shown in other assessment years has been accepted and the assessments have not been reopened u/s 147 or u/s 263 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the agricultural income shown by the assessee should be accepted. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT reported in 193 ITR 321 and the decision in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. reported in 358 ITR 295.
Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the principles of res-judicata do not apply to the income-tax proceedings. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld. He relied on the decisions reported in 32 ITR 466, 155 ITR 121 and 188 ITR 44.
I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of agricultural income on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate with evidence to her satisfaction regarding earning of such agricultural income by producing the requisite details which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A). From the various details furnished by the assessee in the Paper Book I find that the assessee in assessment year 2010- 11 has shown agricultural income of Rs.3,26,326/-, copy of which is placed at page 20 of the Paper Book. Similarly, for assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.3,80,844/-, copy of which is placed at page 22 of Paper Book. For assessment year 2013-014, the assessee had shown agricultural income of Rs.4,10,530/-, copy of which is placed at page 24 of the Paper Book. Similarly, for assessment year 2014-15, assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.4,20,368/-, copy of which is placed at page 26 of Paper Book. None of the cases have been reopened u/s 147/263 of the I.T.
Act even after the scrutiny assessment rejecting the claim of agricultural income. I, therefore, find merit in the argument advanced by the ld. counsel for the assessee that in the light of Rule of consistently alone the agricultural income declared by the assessee should be accepted. Although, the principle of res-judicata do not apply to the income-tax proceedings, however, since the agricultural income declared by the assessee in the preceding and succeeding year has been accepted by the Revenue, although under section 143(1) proceedings, and since none of the assessments have been reopened, therefore, following the Rule of consistency, I am of the considered opinion that the agricultural income declared by the assessee should not have been rejected. I, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to accept the agricultural income.
Ground No.3 by the assessee reads as under :-
“3. Whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified by upholding the order of the AO on the addition of Rs.150000/- u/s 68 as a Gift from husband as unexplained.”
After hearing both the sides, I find the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of receipt of gift of Rs.1,50,000/- by assessee from her husband on the ground that there was no corresponding withdrawal from husband’s bank account. I find in appeal ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer for which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
I find from the Paper Book filed by the assessee that the gift deed has been duly executed by the husband of the assessee on 08.07.2010. From the various details furnished by the assessee, I find the gift has been received by the assessee during the period from 01.04.2010 to 08.07.2010. I find the assessee before the Assessing Officer had given the PAN and confirmation of the donor and copy of the income-tax return during the assessment proceedings. It was given out of the cash balance with her husband. Since out of Rs.4,25,000/- cash gift, the Assessing Officer has already accepted Rs.2,75,000/- as explained therefore, I find no reason to disbelieve the capacity of her husband to the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- received as cash gift. The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed.
Ground No.4 by the assessee reads as under :-
“4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified by upholding the order of the AO on the addition of Rs.1115000/- as advance received on account of sale of future standing crops by sidetracking the evidence by way of confirmation with PAN No. and nature of crops etc. on the record.”
After hearing both the sides, I find the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.11,15,800/- being amount received by the assessee in cash representing advance receipt against the sale of crop received from Shri B.N. Raju on the ground that the assessee did not file any evidence to prove the capacity of such creditor to advance the money and the genuineness of cash receipts. I find in appeal ld. CIT(A) also upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee could not file any evidence to prove the capacity of the person who advanced the huge amount. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the identity and capacity of the person to give such huge cash advance and genuineness of the transaction. The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 16th day of October, 2017.