SHRI BALA LAKRA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1), BHILAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 46/RPR/2020Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 November 2022AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)' decision to sustain the addition. It found that the assessee failed to provide any supporting details or documentary evidence to substantiate her claim of earning agricultural income, either before the AO or the CIT(Appeals).

What were the facts?

The assessee declared agricultural income of Rs. 22,46,385/- in AY 2015-16. During scrutiny assessment, the assessee failed to comply with notices and summons. The AO, after independent inquiry, found no agricultural land in the assessee's name in the inquired district and no agricultural activities on her husband's land. Consequently, the AO treated the declared agricultural income as undisclosed income.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities were justified in treating the declared agricultural income as undisclosed income due to the assessee's failure to substantiate the claim with documentary evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.08.2022Pronounced: 10.11.2022

आदेश / ORDER

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-II, Raipur dated 17.12.2019, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3)/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 27.12.2017 for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned CIT is not justified in sustaining an addition of Rs.38,25,600/-, in facts law and circumstances of the case.”

2.

Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.07.2015, declaring an income of Rs.2,85,740/- a/w agriculture income of Rs.22,46,385/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment u/s.143(2) of the Act.

3.

During the course of assessment proceeding, the A.O issued notice u/s.143(2) of the Act on 13.07.2017, which however was not complied with by the assessee. Thereafter, the A.O issued notice u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act on 10.10.2017 fixing the case for hearing on 16.10.2017, which too remained uncompiled with by the assessee. Also summons u/s.131 of the Act issued by the A.O were not 3 Bala Lakra Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur complied with by the assessee. Thereafter, the A.O issued a questionnaire a/w notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 06.11.2017. Order u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act was passed by the A.O levying a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, a show cause letter was issued by the A.O to the assessee on 11.12.2017 granting a final opportunity to explain the case and the assessee was also asked to substantiate his claim of having earned the agriculture income on the basis of supporting documentary evidence. As the assessee in spite of several opportunities adopted a non-cooperative attitude and failed to place on record requisite documentary evidences, therefore, the A.O in order to verify the actual state of affairs issued summons to the Tahsildar of Dhamdha and also to Patwaris of Village under Tahsil Dhamdha.

3.1 The details obtained by the A.O from the Patwari, Pendrawan were, viz. (i) there was no land in the name of the assessee under Dhamdha Tahsil; and (ii) that though the husband of the assessee possessed land, however, no agricultural activities were being carried out and only a mixer machine was put on the said piece of land. The statement of the Patwari was recorded by the A.O on oath u/s.131 of the Act. Although A.O once again issued a show cause notice to the assessee, therein calling upon him to explain his case but the assessee failed to comply with the same. Accordingly, on the basis of 4 Bala Lakra Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur the aforesaid facts, the A.O held the agriculture income disclosed by the assessee as bogus and assessed the same as his undisclosed income.

4.

Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success.

5.

The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me. As the assessee appellant despite having been intimated about the hearing of appeal had failed to put up an appearance, therefore, I am constrained to proceed with and dispose off the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, i.e, after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

After having given a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the lower authorities, I find that the assessee had furnished the following submissions before the CIT(Appeals):

“During the assessment proceedings, the Ld AO enquired about the land holdings of the assessee from the concerned patwari of Pendrawan, Durg District, whereas the assessee holds land in Rajnandgaon District. Since no land holding was found in Durg District the AO treated the amount of agriculture income as income from other sources and raised demand of tax thereon. The assessee does not hold any land in the district of Durg. The assessee is in possession of agriculture land located at Tilai, Rajnandgaon and Ghaumk, Bhatgaon. The details of total land holdings of 8.386 hec is attached for your perusal.

5 Bala Lakra Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur

Also Form B-1 & P-2 of land Tilai, Rajnandgaon and Khasara Vivran of land at Ghaumk, Bhatgaon is enclosed for your perusal. The AO erred in treating the agriculture income as declared by the assessee as income from other sources. It is humbly prayed before your kind honour to go through the same and cancel the demand raised by the Ld. AO.”

The CIT(Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee was of the view that no supporting details as regards earning of agriculture income was furnished by the assessee. I find that the CIT(Appeals) further observed that no details substantiating the assessee’s claim of having earned agriculture income, viz. area sowed, crops raised, expenses on seeds, fertilizers, labour etc. were furnished by the assessee. It was further observed by the CIT(Appeals) that no details about sale of crops and receipt of money were furnished by the assessee. On a careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, I find that the assessee was unable to establish his claim of having earned agriculture income either before the A.O or before the CIT(Appeals). On the basis of the aforesaid facts, I finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) uphold his order. Thus, the Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations.

6 Bala Lakra Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations.

Order pronounced in open court on 10th day of November, 2022.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →