Smt. Sarla Singh,, Bhopal v. The I.T.O., Bhopal

ITA 28/IND/2010 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2822714 RSA 2010
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 28/IND/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Sarla Singh,, Bhopal
Respondent The I.T.O., Bhopal
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 04-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 17-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 17-02-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 15-01-2010
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 28/IND/2010 A.YS. 2004-05 SMT. SARLA SINGH BHOPAL PAN APMPS-7174Q APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) BHOPAL RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI J. CHANDRASHEKHARAN RESPONDENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN SR. DR O R D E R PER BENCH THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 21.10.2009 THE FIRST GROUND RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS ERRED IN 2 UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED U/S 144 OF THE ACT TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS TAXABLE AND CON SEQUENT TAX TO THE TUNE OF RS.95 568/- EVEN AFTER ACCEPTING THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSES TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL WE HAVE HEARD SHRI J. CHANDRASHEKHARAN LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. APARNA KARAN SR. DR. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DOING AGRICULTURAL OPERATION PROPE R OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN AFTER ADMITTING T HE ADDITION EVIDENCE SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 46A LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE THEREOF WHICH IS PRIMA FACIE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT INSPITE OF ATTE NDING ALL THE HEARING AND SUBMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND ALSO THE I TO RANGE 1(1) THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECIS ION IN NATHURAM PREMCHAND (48 ITR 56) (ALL) ITO V. LAXMIPRASAD GOEN KA (1977) 110 ITR 674 (CAL) AND PH DIVECHA V. CIT (1963) (SC) 222 . A PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 ARE NOT AP PLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE FIRSTLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINT AINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SECONDLY THE REJECTION OF EXPLANATION IS WITHOUT ANY 3 SUBSTANTIAL REASON INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEE PRODUCED SUFFICIENT/ADEQUATE EVIDENCE PROVING THE SOURCE OF INCOME FOR WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN SMT. SHANTAD EVI V. CIT; 171 ITR 532 (PAPER BOOK) SHRI ANANDRAM RAITANI V. CIT; 223 ITR 544 ( GAU) BHAGWATIPRASAD MISHRA V. CIT; 35 ITR 97 KANA N KUNHI V. CIT; 72 ITR 757. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION BY CONTENDING THAT NECESSARY DETAILS OF POSSESSION OF LAND AND DE TAILS OF SALE WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE IS THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE INSPIT E OF THE FACT THAT NECESSARY EVIDENCE OF LAND AND AGRICULTURAL OPERATI ONS CARRIED ON WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HOWEVER ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT NECESSARY DETAILS WER E NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE OBSERVATION IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER IS THAT AS PER POWER OF ATTORNEY THE IMPUGNED LAND SI TUATED IN KHAJURI KALA IS IN THE NAME OF SMT. SHYAMSUTI CHANDRAWAL AND THE ASSESSEE BEING HER DAUGHTER WAS LOOKING AFTER THE AGRICULTURAL AC TIVITIES OF THIS LAND WHO IS CLAIMING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HER HANDS FO R THE AGRICULTURAL WORK 4 DONE BY HER IN THE CAPACITY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY HO LDER WHICH IS AGAINST HUMAN PROBABILITIES. WHAT IT MAY BE THERE IS NO FI NDING IN THE ORDER WHETHER SMT. SHYAMSUTI CHANDRAWAL ALSO CLAIMED AGRI CULTURAL INCOME OR NOT. THERE IS A FURTHER OBSERVATION THAT THERE WAS NO PROOF OF SALES OF BHUSA AND SOYABEAN AND ALSO INCURRING OF EXPENDITUR E FOR CLAIMING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AT PAGE 7 THERE IS A FURTHER F INDING THAT THOUGH SHRI BHOJRAJ SONI FROM M/S BABA ENTERPRISES ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE AGRICULTURAL CROP BUT SINCE HE WAS NOT CARRYING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THEREFORE THE SALE OF CROP COUL D NOT BE COMMENTED. THERE IS NO FINDING WHETHER SHRI BHOJRAJ SONI WAS GIVEN FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR HIS STA TEMENT WAS RECORDED OR NOT CLAIMING OR DISCLAIMING THE PURCHASE OF CRO P FROM THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN VIEW OF T HESE FACTS WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO REMAND THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WILL EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE IF ANY IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL ALSO VERIFY WHETHER ANY AGRICULTURAL O PERATION WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO WHETHER ANY AGRICULTURAL INCO ME WAS CLAIMED BY THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY . 5 FINALLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 4 TH MAY 2010. SD SD (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MAY 4 2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT(A) DR G UARD FILE *DBN/