Sh. Sultan Singh, Meerut v. ITO, Meerut

ITA 881/DEL/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2015 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 88120114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN BDFPS9984L
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 881/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Sultan Singh, Meerut
Respondent ITO, Meerut
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 27-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 27-04-2015
Next Hearing Date 27-04-2015
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 14-02-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH G GG G : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER I II I TA NO. TA NO. TA NO. TA NO. 881 881 881 881 /DEL/201 /DEL/201 /DEL/201 /DEL/201 1 11 1 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 200 200 200 200 5 55 5 - -- - 06 0606 06 SHRI SULTAN SINGH SHRI SULTAN SINGH SHRI SULTAN SINGH SHRI SULTAN SINGH 91 KALYAN NAGAR 91 KALYAN NAGAR 91 KALYAN NAGAR 91 KALYAN NAGAR MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. PAN : BDFPS998 PAN : BDFPS998 PAN : BDFPS998 PAN : BDFPS9984L. 4L. 4L. 4L. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -2(3) 2(3) 2(3) 2(3) MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR SR.DR. DATE OF HEARING : 27.04.2015 27.04.2015 27.04.2015 27.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.04.2015 27.04.2015 27.04.2015 27.04.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER P PP PER N.K. SAINI AM ER N.K. SAINI AM ER N.K. SAINI AM ER N.K. SAINI AM : :: : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER 2010 OF LEARNED CIT(A) MEERUT. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE :- 1. THAT LD.A.O. HAS NOT CONSIDERED THAT THE APPELLA NT IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND HE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OR INCOME EXCEPT AGRICULTURE INCOME. THEREFORE LD.A.O. IS IN ERROR IN ASSUMING AGRICULTURE INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. 2. THAT LD.A.O. AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A) IS IN ERROR IN COMPUTING AGRICULTURE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF FICTITIO US CALCULATION ON THE BASIS OF WHEAT AND PADDY HOWEVER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE SOW SUGARCANE CHERRY PA DDY AND WHEAT DETAIL OF LAND AND EARNING WAS FURNISHED A ND COPY OF KHASRA AND KHATAUNI ALSO FILED WHICH CONFIRM THE ITA-881/DEL/2011 2 STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND CIT(A) IS ALSO IN ERROR IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 3. THAT LD.A.O. IS IN ERROR IN CALCULATING 1 HECTARE = 12.5 BIGHA HOWEVER 1 HECTARE = 11960/756 = 15.82 BIGHA THEREFORE TOTAL AREA OF LAND COMES TO 5.446 HECTARE = 20 KACHCHA BIGHA IT IS APPROXIMATELY 86.16 KACHCHA BIG HA. HENCE CALCULATION OF A.O. ON TOTAL AREA 68.10 BIGHA X 2 500/- PER BIGHA COMES TO RS.1 70 250/- IS INCORRECT CORRECT VALUE OF THE INCOME IS 86.16 BIGHA X 2 500 P ER BIGHA = 2 15 389/-. HENCE AGRICULTURE INCOME CALCU LATED BY THE A.O. IS INCORRECT. SCALE 1 HECTARE = 10000 SQ.MTR. OR 11960 SQ. YARD. 1 BIGHA = 756 SQ. YARD. 4. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT TO ADD/DELETE OR MODIFY ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOR ANYBODY ATTENDE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. WE THE REFORE PROCEEDED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT AND THE A PPEAL IS DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.06.2005 DECLARING AN AGRICULTURAL INCO ME OF ` 3 35 780/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT). THE REAFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE EX-PARTE ORDER AND ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT ` 1 70 250/ - INSTEAD OF ` 3 35 780/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REMAINING INC OME THAT IS ` 1 65 530/- WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. B EING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARN ED CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING IN PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- ITA-881/DEL/2011 3 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED AO'S ORDER AND THE ARS SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE POSSIBLE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH A DETAILED EXERCISE WHICH SHOWS APPLICATION OF MIND. ON THE OTHE R HAND THE ASSESSEE OR THE AR HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT ANY ARGUMENT OF THE AO. A RELIANCE HAS B EEN PLACED ON THE CASE OF R.S. FARMS IN ITA NO.2679 & 4303/DEL/2000. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAID ORDER A ND FIND THAT THE DECISIONS AND THE OBSERVATIONS THEREIN DO NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPEAL IS THERE FORE DISMISSED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEAR NED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR AND HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER F RAMED THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD. LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY COGENT REASON AND EVEN H E HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF THE CASE OF R.S. FA RMS RELIED BY HIM. THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER IN THE EYES OF LAW. IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SLIPSHOD MANNER. WE THEREFORE DEE M IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND CASE I S REMANDED TO ITA-881/DEL/2011 4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH APRIL 2015. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU (H.S. SIDHU (H.S. SIDHU (H.S. SIDHU ) )) ) (N.K. SAINI (N.K. SAINI (N.K. SAINI (N.K. SAINI ) )) ) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SHRI SULTAN SINGH SHRI SULTAN SINGH SHRI SULTAN SINGH SHRI SULTAN SINGH 91 KALYAN NAGAR MEERUT. 91 KALYAN NAGAR MEERUT. 91 KALYAN NAGAR MEERUT. 91 KALYAN NAGAR MEERUT. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- -- -2(3) 2(3) 2(3) 2(3) MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR