Brij Bhushan Pawan Kumar, Moradabad v. ITO Ward 2(1), Moradabad

ITA 1129/DEL/2019 | 2015-2016
Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 112920114 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN DBKPS9675H
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1129/DEL/2019
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant Brij Bhushan Pawan Kumar, Moradabad
Respondent ITO Ward 2(1), Moradabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 10-03-2021
Assessment Year 2015-2016
Appeal Filed On 12-02-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC-1 : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1128/DEL./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) ITA NO.1129/DEL./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15) SHRI JAGAT SINGH VS. ITO WARD 1 (2) 185 NORTH CIVIL LINES MUZAFFARNAGAR. MUZAFFARNAGAR. (PAN : DBKPS9675H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. YADAV ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI R.K. GUPTA SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.03.2021 DATE OF ORDER : 10.03.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER : SINCE COMMON QUESTIONS OF FACTS AND LAW HAVE BEEN R AISED IN THE INTER-CONNECTED APPEALS THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER TO AVOID REPETITION OF DI SCUSSION. 2. APPELLANT SHRI JAGAT SINGH (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 01.03.2017 & 14.11.2017 PASSE D BY THE ITA NO.1128/DEL./2018 ITA NO.1129/DEL./2018 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MUZAFFARNAGAR QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-14 RESPECTIVELY ON THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- ITA NO.1128/DEL/2018 1. THAT DELAY IN FILING APPEAL MAY VERY KINDLY BE CONDONED AS THE APPELLANT WAS HOSPITALIZED. 2. THAT ITO & CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AT RS.49 17000/- & RESTRICTING IT TO RS.2417000/- BY ITO & RS.3042000/ - BY CIT (A). 3. THAT ORDER OF ITO & CIT (A) MAY PLEASE BE SET AS IDE. ITA NO.1129/DEL/2018 1. THAT ITO & CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS IN DISALLOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AT RS.55 58000/- & RESTRICTING IT TO RS.43087000/- BY ITO & RS.3558000 /- BY CIT (A). 2. THAT ORDER OF ITO & CIT (A) MAY PLEASE BE SET AS IDE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSEE E-FILED RETURN O F INCOME AT AN INCOME OF RS.2 03 000/- & RS.2 13 600/- AND AGRICUL TURAL INCOME OF RS.49 17 000/- & RS.55 58 000/- FOR AYS 2013-14 & 2014-15 RESPECTIVELY. DURING SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS ASSESSI NG OFFICER (AO) QUESTIONED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE AT TWO PLACES ONE SITUATED AT VILLAGE CHAUSANA DISTRICT SHAMLI QUA MEASURING 53 BIGHAS AND ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THIS LAN D ON LEASE AT AN INCOME OF RS.9 000/- PER BIGHA WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED AND SECOND CHUNK OF LAND MEASURING 250 BIGHAS SITUATED AT VILLAGE AHMADPUR GRANT TEHSIL & DISTRICT HARIDWAR CLAIMED TO HAVE ITA NO.1128/DEL./2018 ITA NO.1129/DEL./2018 3 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON LEASE AT RS.1 000/- PER BI GHA HAS BEEN DISPUTED AO DISPUTED THE QUANTUM OF INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THIS LAND @ RS.11 500/- PER BIGHA BEI NG ON HIGHER SIDE. DECLINING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE AO ESTIMATED INCOME OF THE LAND MEASURING 250 BIGHAS S ITUATED IN DISTRICT HARIDWAR TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 500/- PER BIG HA AND FRAMED ASSESSMENT AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.27 03 100/- & RS.14 63 600/- BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.25 00 000/- & RS.12 50 000 /- FOR AYS 2013-14 & 2014-15 RESPECTIVELY. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF FILING APPEALS WHO HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEALS B Y CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.18 75 000/- & RS.1 2 50 000/- FOR AYS 2013-14 & 2014-15 RESPECTIVELY. FEELING AGGRIEV ED THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. UNDISPUTEDLY ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO CULTIVATE THE LAND OF 250 BIGHAS TAKEN ON LEASE @ RS.1 000/- PER BIGHA WH ICH HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE AO. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPU TE THAT AO AS ITA NO.1128/DEL./2018 ITA NO.1129/DEL./2018 4 WELL AS LD. CIT (A) HAVE DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE QUA NTUM OF INCOME CLAIMED TO HAVE EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THIS LA ND @ RS.11 500/- PER BIGHA BEING HIGHLY INFLATED. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT BOTH AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A) HAVE PROCEEDED TO RESTRICT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME @ RS.2 500 PER BIGHA AND @ RS.5 000/- PER BIGHA RESPECTIVELY PURELY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATIO N AND GUESSWORK. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE SOWN TWO CROPS NAMELY WHEAT AND RICE IN THE LAND IN QUESTI ON. 7. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE THE SOLE QUESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINATIO N IN THIS CASE IS :- AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INC OME OF RS.11 500/- PER BIGHA QUA LAND MEASURING 250 BIGHAS TAKEN ON LEASE SITUATED AT VILLAGE AHMADPUR DISTRICT HARIDW AR? 8. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED INTER ALIA THAT A O AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A) HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE RECORD VIZ. COPY OF K HASRA OF HARIDWAR LAND COPY OF FASLI KHASRA COPY OF AFFIDA VIT OF PERSONS WHO HAVE PURCHASED WHEAT AND RICE FROM THE ASSESSEE ; THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO THE ADDL. C IT THAT SOME REVENUE OFFICIAL MAY BE DEPUTED TO HARIDWAR LAND FO R PHYSICAL VERIFICATION AS WAS DONE FOR CHAUSANA LAND; THAT AD DL.CIT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2014-15 DIRECTED THE AO TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME FROM HARIDWAR LAND TO RS.5 000/ - PER BIGHA ITA NO.1128/DEL./2018 ITA NO.1129/DEL./2018 5 THOUGH NOT AGREED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE; THAT NO THI RD PARTY WOULD ADDUCE FALSE EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE; TH AT AO HAS NOT PREFERRED TO ENFORCE THE ATTENDANCE OF THE WITNESSE S AND RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. ORISSA CORP. 159 ITR 78 (SC) HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN SHEO NARIAN DULI CHAND 72 ITR 766 (ALL.) NATHU RAM PREM CHAND VS. CIT 49 ITR 561 (ALL.) AND COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF MUKESH V PRAJAPATI VS. ITO IN I TA NO.2118/AHM/2007 . 9. HOWEVER ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR FOR THE REVEN UE TO REPEL THE ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS TAKEN BY THE AS SESSEE AT NOMINAL LEASE RENT AND WAS SUBMERGED WITH WATER I.E. INUNDA TED THE SAME CANNOT PRODUCE THE HIGHLY INFLATED AGRICULTURAL INC OME @ RS.11 500/- PER BIGHA AND THEREBY RELIED UPON THE O RDERS PASSED BY THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A). 10. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO P AGES 1 TO 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK GIVING COMPLETE JUSTIFICATION AND CO MPUTATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INTIMATED TO THE AO DURING A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A). ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 10.02.2017 AVA ILABLE AT PAGES 5 & 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK GIVEN THE NAME OF THREE PE RSONS WHOSE ITA NO.1128/DEL./2018 ITA NO.1129/DEL./2018 6 AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED DURING AYS 2009-10 2011-12 & 2012-13. ASSESSING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A) @ RS.2 500/- AND RS.5 000/- PER BIGHA R ESPECTIVELY THEY HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT QUALITY OF AGRICULTURA L LAND BEING NOT UPTO MARK AS IT IS DESCRIBED AS JALMAGAN LAND (IN U NDATED) AND THAT NO DETAILS / SUPPORTING EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PROVIDE D IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES AND SALE PROCEEDS. 11. SO FAR AS QUESTION OF LAND IN QUESTION TREATED AS JALMAGAN (INUNDATED) BY AO AS WELL AS CIT (A) IS CONCERNED LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS FASLI KHASRA PR EPARED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF PHYSICAL IN SPECTION AFTER RABI AND KHARIF CROP AVAILABLE AT PAGE 24 OF THE P APER BOOK WHICH GOES TO PROVE THAT THE LAND IS SHOWN AS DULY CULTIV ATED FOR PADDY & CROPS DURING KHARIF AND RABI PERIOD. THIS FASLI KH ASRA WAS ISSUED ON 03.09.2013. NEELESS TO SAY THAT THIS FASLI KHAS RA HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 12. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWAR DS ANNEXURE A ANNEXED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHIC H IS UDRAN KHATAUNI IN WHICH LAND IN QUESTION IS RECORDED AS R AJWAHA JALMAGAN BHOOMI. NO DOUBT THIS ANNEXURE A WAS A LSO PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO AO BUT WAS ISSUED ON 07.05.2010 AND CANNOT BE FOUND RELEVANT FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION I. E. 2013-14 & ITA NO.1128/DEL./2018 ITA NO.1129/DEL./2018 7 2014-15 PARTICULARLY WHEN ASSESSEE HAS MADE A SPECI FIC REQUEST TO THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A) FOR PHYSICAL INSPECTI ON OF THE LAND IN QUESTION TO CHECK ITS QUALITY BUT AO HAS NOT PREFER RED TO MAKE ANY PHYSICAL INSPECTION RATHER PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE TH E INCOME ON THE BASIS OF GUESSWORK. 13. FASLI KHASRA BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 24 & 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS AN OFFICIAL DOC UMENT PREPARED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF PHYSICAL INSPECTION IN DUE COURSE OF THEIR DUTIES AND AS SUCH PRESUMPTION OF TRUTH IS ATTACHED TO THE SAME. SO THE SAME CANNOT BE THROW N INTO DUSTBIN MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. S O THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT LAND IN QUESTION WAS JALMAGAN BH OOMI IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 14. SECONDLY IT IS THE CASE OF THE AO/CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPOR T THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE PERSONS TO WHOM AGR ICULTURAL PRODUCE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 16 TO 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN ALL THE DEPONENTS HAVE STATED O N OATH THAT THEY HAVE PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE VIZ. PADDY HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE ETC. WHICH HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE AO. MERELY ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON T HE BASIS OF ITA NO.1128/DEL./2018 ITA NO.1129/DEL./2018 8 KHATONI WHICH IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE YEARS UNDER AS SESSMENT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE FACE OF FASLI KHASRA FOR THE PER IOD UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOWING REGULAR CULTIVATION OF PADDY AND WHEAT IN THE LAND IN QUESTION. AO HAS IGNORED ALL THESE DOC UMENTS FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. 15. PERUSAL OF FASLI KHASRA BROUGHT ON RECORD BY TH E ASSESSEE GOT DULY CORROBORATED WITH EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AFFI DAVITS FILED BY THE PERSONS WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACT THAT SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REQUESTING THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO CONDUCT PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF LAND IN QUESTION SO AS TO ACTUALLY AS SESS ITS QUALITY AND PRODUCTION CAPACITY. AO HAS NOT EVEN PREFERRED TO EXAMINE THE PERSONS WHO WERE ENGAGED IN THE AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO NOT EXAMINE THE PERSONS WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE FROM HIM DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 16. WHEN ALL THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON REC ORD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT NOT EXAM INED BY THE AO ASSESSEE CANNOT PUT AGAIN AND AGAIN IN THE SAME ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY TH E ASSESSEE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. EVEN AT NO POINT OF TIME ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE AO TO PRODU CE THE CONCERNED PERSONS WHO HAVE FACILITATED CULTIVATION OF THE ITA NO.1128/DEL./2018 ITA NO.1129/DEL./2018 9 AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 17. FURTHERMORE WHEN WE EXAMINE ALL THESE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT ADDL.CIT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 DIRECTED THE AO TO ESTIMATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE LAND TAKEN ON LEASE @ RS.8 000/- PER BIGHA AS PER LETTER DATED 09.12.2016 THIS FACT GOE S TO PROVE THAT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE ESTIMATING TH E AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT THEIR WHIMS AND FANCIES. 18. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE WE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY BROUGHT ON RECORD THE ENTIRE EVIDENCES TO PROVE AGRICULTURAL INCOME @ RS. 11 500/- PER BIGHA PER ANNUM AND HAS NOT INFLATED ITS INCOME. A LL THE DOCUMENTS HAVE GONE UNREBUTTED ON THE PART OF THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES. CONSEQUENTLY BOTH THE APPEALS FOR AY S 2013-14 & 2014-15 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF MARCH 2021. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (KULDIP SIN GH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 10 TH DAY OF MARCH 2021. TS ITA NO.1128/DEL./2018 ITA NO.1129/DEL./2018 10 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) MUZAFFARNAGAR. 5.CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR ITAT NEW DELHI.