Mrs. N.Sasikala, CHENNAI v. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1378/CHNY/2008 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 137821714 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AMNPS6598J
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1378/CHNY/2008
Duration Of Justice 8 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Mrs. N.Sasikala, CHENNAI
Respondent DCIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Date Of Final Hearing 27-07-2016
Next Hearing Date 27-07-2016
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 23-06-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B B ENCH CHENNAI . ' # . $ & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY JUDICI AL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1378 /MDS/2008 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 ) MRS. N.SASIKALA 36 POES GARDEN CHENNAI-600 086. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(2) CHENNAI-34. PAN: AMNPS6598J ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. G.NARAYANASWAMY C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR. T.R.SENTHIL KUMAR SR. STANDING COUNSEL /DATE OF HEARING : 27 TH JULY 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- I CHENNAI DATED 29.04.2008 IN ITA NO.107/07-08 PAS SED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HER APPEAL HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS AS FOLLOW S:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS.1 06 591/- LEVIED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NOS.1378 /MDS/2008 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.02.1999 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE IS SUED BY THE DEPARTMENT UNDER SECTION 142(1) ON 10.11.1997 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS.12 96 740/- APART FROM AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME OF RS.3 02 850/-. THEREAFTER NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE A CT ON 28.03.2000 WHEREIN THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER M ADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES. SUBSEQUENTLY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHEREIN PENALTY WAS LE VIED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR WRONGLY CLAIMING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2 81 015/-. 4. BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESS EE HAD SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS:- I) KOREAN GRASS WAS GROWN IN THE LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS SOLD TO NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS IN AND AROUND UTHANDI NEELANKARAI ETC. 3 ITA NOS.1378 /MDS/2008 II) VEGETABLES WERE GROWN IN 3 ACRES OF LAND BY WA Y OF TWO CROPS. SEEDS WERE PURCHASED LOCALLY FROM VISITI NG SALESMAN AGAINST CASH PAYMENT. III) AGRICULTURE PRODUCE WERE SOLD TO VARIOUS VEGET ABLE DEALERS FOR CASH IN THE FARM ITSELF. IV) THE ADANGAL EXTRACTS WERE APPLIED FOR AND WAS EXPECTED TO BE RECEIVED V) THERE WERE LEASE LANDS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT AP ART FROM OWN AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING. HOWEVER THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HAVING EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED INVOICES OR ANY CORR OBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE HER CLAIM. 5. ON APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER ACCEPTING HIS VIEW. HOWEVER HE ALSO HELD T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED HER OWNERSHIP OF 23.8 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT PANAYUR BUT THE MERE FACT OF O WNERSHIP OF 4 ITA NOS.1378 /MDS/2008 AGRICULTURAL LANDS ALONE WOULD NOT LEAD TO AUTOMATI C CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CULTIVATED THESE LANDS DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ON FURTHER APP EAL THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 16.02.2006 IN ITA NO.893/MDS/2001 ALSO HELD THAT MERE FACT OF OWNING LAND WOULD NOT LEAD TO AUTOMATIC CONCLUSION THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD IN FACT CULTIVATED THESE LANDS DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM TH E ABOVE IT IS APPARENT THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING OF THE A SSESSEE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT OR AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT OF 23 ACRE S IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED VARIOUS DOCUME NTS BEFORE US TO ESTABLISH THAT SHE IS IN POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. THE ONLY REASON ADDUCED BY THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR DISALLOWING HER CLAIM FOR HAVING EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS THAT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WERE NOT FURNISH ED BEFORE THE REVENUE TO PROVE SHE WAS REALLY CULTIVATING HER AGRICULTURAL LANDS. FROM THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NON-FURNIS HING OF 5 ITA NOS.1378 /MDS/2008 CONVINCING EVIDENCE MAY BE A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR MAKING ADDITION BUT THAT CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR LEVY OF PE NALTY BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING APPROXIMATELY 23 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN HER POSSESSION FROM WHICH AGRI CULTURAL INCOME COULD BE EARNED. IN THIS GIVEN CASE THE RE VENUE HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRIES TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED ON BY THE ASSE SSEE BUT SIMPLY DISALLOWED HER CLAIM AS NO VOUCHERS OR OTHER EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS CARRIED OUT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND EARNED AGRI CULTURAL INCOME. WE ARE REMINDED OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARIGOPAL SINGH VS. CIT REPORTED IN 258 ITR 85 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE RE HAS TO BE POSITIVE ACT OF CONCEALMENT ON THE ASSESSEES PA RT AND ONUS TO PROVE THIS IS ON THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE PRE SENT CASE THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CARRIED OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. THEREFORE W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE CASE BEFORE US PENALTY CANNOT BE 6 ITA NOS.1378 /MDS/2008 LEVIED INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HENCE WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS.1 06 591/- LEVIED INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ' # . $ ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI ( /DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 SOMU *+ + /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF