SHRI SHARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(5), AMRITSAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 350/ASR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 November 2022AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities did not use a proper valuation method to ascertain the agricultural income. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish all supporting evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 73,00,000 cash in a bank, claiming it as agricultural income. The AO made an addition of Rs. 30,50,000 after accepting peak credit of Rs. 35,50,000 and restricting agricultural income to Rs. 5,00,000 based on a previous High Court order.

What were the issues?

Whether the agricultural income was correctly assessed by the AO and CIT(A) based on outdated precedent, and if proper valuation methods were employed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hearing: 10.11.2022Pronounced: 15.11.2022

Date of Hearing 10.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.11.2022 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar, [in brevity the ld. CIT(A)] bearing appeal no.10368/2016-17, date of order 28.03.2018, the order passed u/s 250 (6)of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2014-15. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(5), Amritsar, (in brevity the AO), order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, date of order 13.12.2016.

2.

Brief fact of the case is that the assessee had deposited cash in Punjab Gramin Bank with the total amount of Rs.73,00,000/-. The assessment was completed, and the addition was made amount of Rs.30,50,000/-. During assessment the ld. AO has accepted the peak credit in the bank account related to deposit of cash amount of Rs.35,50,000/-. The assessee was asked for explanation.

As per the assessee the net agricultural income during the year was 51,52,000/-& cash was deposited out of agricultural income. The assessee has possessed the agricultural land of 115 Kanal. But the ld. AO considering the order of the Hon’ble P & H High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jarnail Singh which was confirmed the finding of ITAT, Amritsar Bench in ITA 611/Asr/2011 date of order 11.09.2012 the amount of agricultural income was restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-. Sothe said income was deducted from peak credit and Rs.30,50,000/- (Rs.35,50,000/- (-)

Rs.5,00,000/-) &was added back. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had further considered the income from business and profession in relation to sale of milk on retail basis and the income Rs.1,64,000/- was accepted. The addition was reduced to 28,86,000/- (Rs.30,50,000/- (-)

Rs.1,64,000/-). The net addition was restricted up to Rs.28,86,000/-.

3.

Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

4.

During the hearing none was present on behalf of the assessee. The matter is taken up with the consent of the ld. Sr. DR for further adjudication.

5.

We heard the submission of the revenue and considered the order of both the revenue authorities. The assessee has submitted the explanation before the ld. CIT(a) during proceeding. The entire assessment was completed on basis of the order of Hon’ble P & H High Court which was upheld the observation of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench. But the said case was related to assessment year 2002-03.

The assessee had taken the plea that the assessee’s income is related to F.Y. 2013-

14.

So, the financial valuation of crop in agriculture is not similar in respect to the year in which the order of the ITAT, Amritsar is related. In both the revenue authorities in their orders had not taken any proper valuation method to ascertain the income of the assessee from said agricultural land. The ld Sr Dr has not made any strong objection against this issue. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to restore the issue to the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the evidence/material to justify the claim. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing 6. allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.11.2022

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →