Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra
Narendra Kumar Baghel, Agra vs Assessee on 1 April, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
AGRA BENCH, AGRA
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 18/Agra/2014
Asst. year : 2006-07
Mr. Narendra Kumar Baghel, vs. Income-tax Officer,
8/153, F-3, New Lawyer's Colony, Agra. 4(3), Agra.
(PAN : AFYPB 8309 J)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Himanshu Varshney, Advocate
Respondent by` : Smt. Anuradha, Jr. D.R.
Date of hearing : 01.04.2014
Date of pronouncement : 04.04.2014
ORDER
Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M.:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-II, Agra dated 05.03.2012 for the assessment year 2006-07.
2. We have heard the ld. representatives of both the parties, perused the findings of authorities below and the material on record.
3. On ground No. 1 & 2, the assessee challenged the addition of Rs.95,500/- as income from other sources as against the agricultural income shown by the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to justify the claim of agricultural income by 2 ITA No. 18/Agra/2014 way of filing Khasra, Khatoni and other documents supporting the sale of agricultural produce and production cost. According to the AO, despite sufficient opportunity given to the assessee, the assessee failed to file the same. Accordingly, entire agricultural income was added u/s. 68 of the IT Act, treating the same as income from other sources. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee did not maintain the books of account of agricultural income and on estimate basis, income was declared by calculating the produce per hectare. The father and forefather of the assessee were farmers and after the death of his father, the land was transferred in his name. Kissan Bahi (Khasra / Khatoni) was filed. In last many years, the assessee declared agricultural income, which has not been disallowed by the Revenue department. The ld. CIT(A) in the absence of documentary evidence confirmed the addition. He was of the view that owning of land itself will not generate the agricultural income.
4. On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view, the whole addition is unjustified on this issue. The assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.95,500/- and total was added u/s. 68 of the IT Act. The assessee in the paper book filed copy of acknowledgement of filing of returns for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06, in which the assessee declared agricultural income for rate purpose at Rs.70,000/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively. In assessment year 2007-08, the intimation u/s. 143(1) is filed, in which the AO accepted the agricultural 2 ITA No. 18/Agra/2014 income at Rs.1,25,000/-. In the paper book, Kissan Bahi and copy of receipts regarding sale of agricultural produce are filed to show that the assessee earned agricultural income. The ld. CIT(A) did not dispute that the assessee held agricultural land. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and history of the assessee, in which the Revenue department did not dispute the agricultural income earned by the assessee in earlier assessment year and in subsequent assessment year, would suggest that the assessee has earned agricultural income, which is supported by Khasra Khatoni of agricultural land held by the assessee and copies of the few receipts of sale of agricultural produce. Similarly, the assessee has not filed specific evidence of earning of agricultural income at Rs.95,500/- as claimed in the return of income. Therefore, considering the previous history of the assessee, it would be reasonable and appropriate to accept the agricultural income in a sum of Rs.75,000/- in the year under appeal as was also shown in the preceding assessment year 2005-06. The orders of the authorities below are, accordingly, modified and the AO is directed to accept the agricultural income in a sum of Rs.75,000/- and restrict the addition to Rs.20,500/-. In the result, grounds No. 1 & 2 of appeal of the assessee are partly allowed.
5. On ground No. 3, the assessee challenged the addition of Rs.1,07,000/- towards deposit made in the bank account. The AO from the perusal of the copy of bank statement of assessee's bank account No. 16096 with Syndicate Bank 2 ITA No. 18/Agra/2014 obtained from the bank found that there were cash deposits of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,05,000/- and Rs.4,10,000/- on 13.08.2005, 30.08.2005 and 31.08.2005 respectively. The assessee did not explain these deposits, therefore, the addition of Rs.5,17,000/- was made. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee obtained housing loan of Rs.4,10,000/- from Syndicate Bank on 31.08.2005. The amounts of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,05,000/- were deposited in the bank account on these dates towards margin money and service charges. The margin money was deposited out of petty savings. Bank Manager also certified regarding bank loan of Rs.4,10,000/-. It was, therefore, prayed that the addition may be deleted. The AO was directed to verify this fact and remand report was filed. The AO accepted that housing loan of Rs.4,10,000/- was taken which addition was deleted. However, for the rest of the amount of Rs.1,07,000/- being cash deposited in the bank account, no evidence was filed and accordingly, the addition of this amount was sustained.
6. On consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee. No evidences of any past savings have been filed on record. The assessee filed return of income at Rs.1,01,355/- only. No size of family and other liabilities have been explained. Therefore, even if earning of agricultural income is accepted as above, this would not be sufficient even to meet out the day-to-day expenses of the assessee. In the absence of any details and 2 ITA No. 18/Agra/2014 evidence on record, we are of the view that the authorities below were justified in making addition of Rs.1,07,000/- being income from undisclosed sources. The addition is, therefore, confirmed. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
7. Ground No. 4 is regarding charging of interest, which is mandatory and consequential and as such this ground is dismissed.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PRAMOD KUMAR) (BHAVNESH SAINI)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
*aks/-
Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A), concerned By order
4. CIT, concerned
5. DR, ITAT, Agra
6. Guard file Sr. Private Secretary
True copy