SHRI JAVAID IQBAL TARA,SAPORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), BARAMULA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar (Camp Office at Jammu) dated 22.02.2019 in respect of Assessment Year 2012-13.
2 ITA No. 285/Asr/2019 Javaid Iqbal Tara v. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & facts by confirming action of AO by making addition of Rs.1,96,591/-. The addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted.
The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law & facts by confirming action of AO by not allowing the benefit of Agriculture Rebate.
The appellant reserves all right to amend, alter, add and modify the grounds of appeal.”
None appeared for the appellant nor any adjournment application
filed on record. Considering the minor issue of excess claim of agricultural
income of Rs.1,96,591/-, it is decided to hear the Ld. DR and dispose the
appeal on merits. The assessee is working as an engineer with the R&B
Department of the J&K Govt. and he filed Return of income declaring a Net
taxable at Rs. 4, 52, 928/- after claiming deduction under chapter VIA/Sec
80C at Rs. 8,09,000/-. The AO discussed that the assessee had declared
Gross Total income of Rs. 12,61,928 /- in his return of income. After
reducing the salary income of Rs. 6,40,337 and agricultural income of
Rs.4,25,000/, there still remained income of Rs. 1,96,591/- which was
assessed as Income from other sources.
3 ITA No. 285/Asr/2019 Javaid Iqbal Tara v. ITO
The assesse being aggrieved with the Assessment Order, went in
appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition by observing
as under:
“4. During appeal, none attended nor any written submissions have been filed. The grounds of appeal are, therefore, adjudicated on the basis of facts on record as under:
I have considered the issue. The assessee is working as an engineer with the R&B Department of the J&K Govt. Return of income was filed declaring a Gross total income of Rs. 12, 61, 928/-. Net taxable income was shown at Rs. 4, 52, 928/-after claiming deduction under chapter VIA/Sec 80C at Rs. 8,09,000/-. During assessment proceedings, it was submitted by the appellant that he was under a wrong impression that agricultural income is exempt and deductible from the gross income due to lack of knowledge of the Income Tax Act provisions.
The appellant filed salary certificate in form 16 issued by the DDO as per which he had received gross salary of rupees 6,40,337/-. Accordingly, salary income was rightly taken by Ld. AO as per form 16.
The appellant had added agricultural income to the salary income and then claimed it as deduction under chapter VIA. Deduction under chapter VIA was rightly allowed by Ld AO at Rs.1,07,000/.
During assessment proceedings, the assessee produced ownership proof in respect of orchard/ agricultural land of about 30 kanals in his name and also a confirmation regarding receipt of agricultural income from sale of apples. As per the documentary evidence furnished, the agricultural income was accepted at Rs. 4,25,000/-
The assessee had declared income of Rs. 12,61,928 /- in his return of income. After reducing the salary income of Rs. 6,40,337 and agricultural income of Rs.4,25,000/, there still remained income of Rs. 1,96,591/- which was rightly assessed as Income from other sources. I find no infirmity in the assessment order as made above, In the absence of any submissions filed by the appellant during appeal, I have no reason to interfere with the above order of Ld AO.
4 ITA No. 285/Asr/2019 Javaid Iqbal Tara v. ITO 5. The appellant contended in the grounds of appeal that the ld. CIT(A)
has erred in law and on facts by confirming action of AO by making addition
of Rs.1,96,591/- by not allowing the benefit of Agriculture Rebate.
Per contra, the Ld DR strongly supported the impugned order and
explained that the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition being the
amount over and above the salary and agricultural income shown by the
appellant itself in its Return of income under the head income from other
sources.
Heard the Addl. CIT (DR), perused the material on record, and
impugned order. Admittedly, the AO made the addition under the head
income from other sources to the extent of the amount being shown by the
appellant over and above the salary and agricultural income shown in its
Return of income as agricultural rebate. Since, there is no provision under
the law of agricultural rebate, rather it is exempted from income tax and
used for rate purposes, and therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly directed the
AO to use the agricultural income for Tax rate purpose while confirming the
addition of Rs.1,96,591/-. Accordingly, we find no infirmity or perversity in
the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the facts on record. Thus, the grounds of
appeal are rejected.
5 ITA No. 285/Asr/2019 Javaid Iqbal Tara v. ITO 8. In view of the above, we find no perversity as infirmity in the order of
the CIT(A) and accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is sustained.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.03.2023
Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr./P.S.* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order
