Sri Meka Radhakrishna Varaprasad, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam v. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

ITA 507/VIZ/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 50725314 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ABVPM2324D
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 507/VIZ/2009
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Sri Meka Radhakrishna Varaprasad, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam
Respondent The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 10-03-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 11-11-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER(S MC) ITA NOS.504 TO 510/VIZAG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 TO 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY SRI MEKA RADHAKRISHNA VARAPRASAD VIZIANAGARAM DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.ABVPM 2324D APPELLANT BY: SHRI Y.A. RAO CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.S.S. GOPINATH DR ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON COMMON GROUNDS RELATING TO ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I HOWEVER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE REPRODUCE THE GROUNDS OF ITA NO.504 OF 2009 AS UNDER: 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143 READ WITH SECTION 153C OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUST W HEN THE AUTHORISED OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY INCRIMINATE MAT ERIAL PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 O F THE I.T. ACT BOTH IN THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS OT HER PREMISES COVERED UNDER SEARCH WARRANT AND THE CIT(APPEALS) F AILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTUAL POSITIONS. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSM ENT MADE U/S 143(3) R.W.S. OF SECTION 153C OF THE I.T. ACT IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY SEIZED MATERIAL PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT AND PAR TICULARLY WHEN THE APPELLANT DID NOT BRING AGRICULTURAL INCOME INT O BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WARRANTING AN ADDITION. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTI NG THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AFTER ACCEPTING THE QUANTUM OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN AT RS.65 000/- OBTAINED BY THE APPELLANT ON CULTIVATING 7.72 ACRES OF LAND IN WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT TAKEN ON LEASE FROM SRI N. VENKATESWARA RAO MERELY BECAUSE 2.86 ACRES OF LAND IS OWNED BY SMT. N. PADMA KUMARI W/O SRI N. VENKATESWARA RAO. 4. THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEES FAILURE IN PRODUCING SUPPORTING EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME/EXPENDITURE IN SUCH ACTIVITY WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE NET AGRICULT URAL INCOME OFFERED IN THE RETURN. 2 5. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO CONSIDER EXPLANATIO N OF SECTION 153A FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF IT ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THIS SECTION I.E. EXISTENCE OF MATERIAL TO CONSIDE R IN THE 148 CASE OF REOPENED ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT TH E TIME OF HEARING THE APPELLANT PRAYING FOR DELETION OF ADDI TION OF RS.40 700/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. IN OTHER APPEALS GROUNDS ARE ALMOST SIMILAR EXCE PT THE QUANTUM IN ADDITIONS. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND C AREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD S. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ISSUE BORNE O UT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME SINCE 1997-98 AND ALL RETURNS WERE ACCEPTED U/S 143(1) AND THE DECLARED I NCOME INCLUDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME. ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ON LEASE APPX. 8 ACRES OF LAND FROM HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW AND HAD BEEN REGULARLY PAYING TH E LEASE AMOUNT TO THE LESSOR WHO WAS STAYING ABROAD. A SEARCH U/S 132 W AS CONDUCTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME OF THE ASSESSEES AFTER REJECTING THE DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE AND ADDED THE DIFFERENCE AS AN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE AS SESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND WITH RE GARD TO THE SUPPRESSION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MAT ERIAL INDICATING SUPPRESSION OF INCOME THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OFFERE D BY HIM WAS ALREADY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND NO INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL WAS NOTICED BY A.O. TO REJECT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WHICH WAS ORIGI NALLY OFFERED IN THE RETURN U/S 139 OF THE ACT AND WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTME NT U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT B ROUGHT OUT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CULTIVATE D LAND WHICH WAS TAKEN ON LEASE. THE CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE ISSUE BUT WAS NO T CONVINCED WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIO NS. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L AND REITERATED ITS CONTENTIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS EMPHATICALLY ARGUED THAT 3 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED THE AGRICULT URAL INCOME BY FILING THE RETURNS U/S 139 OF THE ACT WHICH WERE PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS NO JURISDICTION TO RE-ASSES S THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL SHOWING SU PPRESSION OF INCOME FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. MOREOVER THE S EARCH WAS NOT CONDUCTED UPON THE ASSESSEES. HE HAS INITIATED THE PROCEEDIN GS U/S 153C OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS PLACED A HEAV Y RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND I FIND T HAT UNDISPUTEDLY NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH SUGGEST ANY SUPPRESSION OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEES AT THE T IME OF FILING ITS RETURN SHOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED A PARTICULAR AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS RE TURN FILED U/S 139(1) AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) THAT DECLARED INCOME CANNOT BE DISTURBED UNLESS AND UNTIL THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FIND SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH SUGGEST ANY SUPPRESSION OF INCOME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEES. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME THROUGH HIS REGULAR RETURNS OF INCOME FILED U/S 139(1) AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NOTHING WA S FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEES AS SUCH I FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN ESTIMA TION OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO MAKE AN ADDI TION OF THE DIFFERENCE AS AN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. I THEREFORE SET ASID E THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITIONS. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEES ARE A LLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.3.2010 SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 10 TH MARCH 2010 4 COPY TO 1 M/S. ROWE & PAL CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 14-36-1 KRISHNA NAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM 2 DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 VISAKHAPATNAM 3 THE CIT VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE CIT(A) VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM