Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Madan Mohan Singh, Ambala vs Ito, Ambala on 29 November, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'SMC' BENCH, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 459/CHD/2016
Assessment Year: 2012-13
Shri Madan Mohan Singh, Vs The ITO,
Village & P.O. Ghel, Ward No. 3,
Distt. - Ambala. Ambala.
PAN: BLDPS9168L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Rohit Goel
Respondent by : Shri S.K.Mittal, DR
Date of Hearing : 18.11.2016
Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2016
O R D E R
This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals)-2 Gurgaon dated 18.02.2016 for assessment year 2012-13, challenging the addition of Rs. 18 lacs under section 68 of the Income Tax Act out of agriculture land income holding the same as 'income from other sources'.
2. Brief facts of the case are that return declaring income of Rs. 2,457/- was filed on 29/03/2013. The assessee had also shown agricultural income of Rs. 2 23,21,222/-details of which are as under:-
Particulars Amount (In Rupees) Agricultural Income (Farm-J) sale of wheat paddy etc. 7,44,603.35 Agricultural Income (Sale of Safeda Tree) 20,00,000.00 Total (Rs.) 27,44,603.35 Expenses 30% in respect of wheat and paddy 2,23,381.01 Expenses 1 0% in respect of Safeda Trees 2,00,000.00 Aggregate Income 2,321,222.35 2(i) The AO verified the document regarding the agricultural income on account of Paddy and Wheat
amounting to Rs. 5,21,222/- and accepted the same. As regards, agricultural income amounting to Rs, 18,00,000/- on account of sale of 1631 Safeda Trees, the AO asked the assessee to furnish copies of Jamabandi and Girdawari. The assessee furnished the requisite document. The AO noted that it was not mentioned in the Girdawari that Safeda Trees were ever planted by the assessee at the land owned by him. The AO pointed out these facts to the assessee and asked the appellant to give Khasra wise details of cultivation of crops. The assessee failed to furnish this information but claimed that Safeda Trees had been planted on the boundary of the land. The assessee contended that trees planted on the boundary are not recorded in the Girdawari. The assessee contended that Safeda Trees were planted at a distance of six feet from each other on the boundary of land marked as Khasra No. 51, 20 & 11. In the land marked at Khasra No. 20 & 11 Safeda Trees were claimed to have been planted in a Single 3 row whereas in Khasra No. 51, trees were claimed to have been planted in double raw.
3. The AO considered the assessee's submissions but was not satisfied. The Assessing Officer pointed out that as claimed by the assessee, if the Safeda Trees were planted in double raw of Khasra No. 51 then the inner line of tree must have fallen within the fields itself and therefore these must have been recorded in the Girdawari. The Assessing Officer further referred to the assessee's claim that 1631 had been sold and were planted on the boundary and observed that the total area of 16.5 Acres comprising of these three Khasra could not have circumference of 9940 feet on which the trees could have been planted. The AO computed the circumference at 5744 feet as against 9940 feet claimed by the assessee.
3(i) The AO further, referred to the assessee's claim that Safeda Trees had been sold to Sh. Tarwar and Sh. Sarwan Kumar and pointed out that it was claimed that the sale price was received in cash. The AO issued summons u/s 131 to both these persons for verifying the genuineness of transaction and receipt of sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Summons issued to Sh. Tarwar was received back with remarks wrong address. There was no compliance in other case also. The AO accordingly asked the assessee to produce both these persons for examination to verify the genuineness of transaction of the cash receipt. In-spite of repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to produce 4 these persons and vide reply dated 16/10/014 submitted that the persons to whom Safeda Trees had been sold could not be produced for verification as he was not a local resident. The AO held that the assessee had failed to establish that the income of Rs. 18,00,000/- declared in the return of income was earned by him through sale of trees and accordingly added the same as his income from other sources.
4. The assessee challenged the addition before ld. CIT(Appeals) and written submission of the assessee is reproduced in the impugned order which reads as under :
"Assessee has filed its return of Income for the Assessment year 2012- 13, declaring an income of Rs. 2457, under the head income from other sources. Besides the income from other sources, agricultural income amounting to Rs. 23,12,221/- has been declared. The Assessee's case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. As against returned Income of Rs. 2457, the assessment was framed at exorbitant amount of taxable Income of Rs. 17,76,500/-. The Assessee has filed agricultural Income out of which Rs. 18,00,000.00 has been added back on account of sale of safeda trees in the taxable Income of Assessee as Income from other sources.
The Assessee has no other business or profession other than Agriculturist Learned A. O's observation vide order dated 31.12.2014 at Page 4 is as under:-
"The assessee has claimed to have planted the Safeda trees on land khasra No. 51 in the double row, then the inner line of trees must have fallen within the field itself and therefore, these trees would must have been recorded in the Girdawari. It is because the trees falling within outer line would have not been planted, exactly at the boundary (in inches) and must have been inside from the boundary. Further, if trees of inner line are planted at the distances of six feets, the inner line of trees clearly falls with in the field, which should have been recorded in the Girdawari.5
Therefore the assessee's submissions are not considered to be true and correct and it is only an after thought that Safeda trees were actually planted on boundary of the land, which are not recorded by the Land Revenue Authorities in the Girdawari".
In this regard Assessee's submissions are as under:-
Learned A. O has on the basis of presumption & exemptions stated that in case if safeda trees are planted in double rows at the distance of six feets, it must have fallen within the fields & the trees falling within outer line of boundary should have been recorded in the girdawari, which is Incorrect.
Distance between 1 to 3 & 2 to 4 is six feet & distance between 1 to 2 & 2 to 3 is three feet.
If the trees are planted in above pattern there shall be distance of six feet in particular row and no tree will be in the field. Thus A.O.'s presumption & assumption is not based on the facts of the case.
As regard to gardawari of the double plantation on the outer boundaries which have not been recorded by the patwari in the gardawari, it is respectfully submitted that at the time of plantation, two rows of plants can easily be planted on boundaries and revenue authority shall not record the plantation at the time of gardwari due to the reason that Safeda is planted only on the boundaries and not in the field and in coming years the practice goes of not recording the trees.
A certificate from Halka Patwari stating that safeda planted on boundaries of the field are not recorded in the Gardawari( Revenue Record) has been furnished during the Assessment proceedings.
Thus A. O's version is wrong and against the facts of the case.
Learned A. O's observations vide Page 4 of order are as under:-6
" The Assessee vide reply dated 30.12.2014 has claimed that 1631 Safeda Trees, which have been sold, were planted on boundaries of three fields involving total area 16.5 Acres and circumference of 9940 Feet, as per details hereunder :
Khasra No. Boundaries/Circumference
Khasra No. 51 4020 feet
Khasra No. 20 4400 feet
Khasra No. 11 1520 feet
The Assessee's this submission is also contradictory in itself as fields involving total area of 16.5 Acres, in any way cannot have circumference of 9940 feets."
The Assessee's submission is as under:-
A.O assumption that total area of 16.5 Acre in any way cannot have circumference of 9940 Feets which is wrong and illogical on the basis of wrong arithmetic calculations, which is explained with the help of attached maps of each khasra stated above.
Basis of Calculation of Learned A. O.:-
Khasra Circumference Additional Circumference as Area of One side Circumference No. Single Line Circumfere claimed by field of field A nce (for assessee C=A+B Double Line) B 51 2540fts 1480ft 4020fts. 6.67 acre 540ft 2160ft (60%) (290550 sq feet) 20 3780fts 620ft 4400fts. 7.30 acre 564ft 2256ft (318000 sq feet) 11 1520fts 0 1520fts. 2.53 acre 332ft 1328ft (110210 sq feet) Total 7840ft. 2100ft. 9940ft. 16.5 1436ft 5744ft Acre Note: In the above table while calculating the Area of on Acre, Learned A. O. has taken Length of outer Boundary as 198 fts and Breadth as 220 fts which comes to:-7
198ft *220ft=43560 sq feets per Acre.
For 6.67 Acres:- 43 560*6.67Acres- 290550 sq feets This Area has been then used to calculate One side of field in feets by Square rooting, thus presuming the field as square which is wrong and results of which are misleading.
One Acre's circumference on the basis of above table:-
One side of Total Acres One side of one Acre Total circumference Total 16.5 Acres per Acre 1436 16.5 1436/16.5=87 fts 87*4=348 fts.
In View of the above, Learned A. O. 's calculations are not only wrong but the result derived out of it are misleading.
Learned A.O's Observations vide Page 5 of order are as under:-
" The Assessee has claimed to sold these safeda trees to Sh. Tarwar, s/o Sh. Tanu Husan, Vill. Mirjapur poll, Distt. Saharanpur(U.P) and Sh. Sarwan Kumar, s/o Sh. Rajpal, vill. Mirgarh, Tehsil Behat, Distt. Saharanpur(U.P). However, despite allowing number of opportunities to Assessee could not be able to produce both the persons for verification and examining. He vide reply dated 16.10.2014 categorically denied that persons to whom safeda has been sold cannot be produced for verification as he was not a local resident."
The Assessee's submission is as under:-
The purchaser of the safeda trees are a group of laborers of a particular area who joins hands for doing collective labour and enter into a contract for standing trees. They collectively cut it down and carry the same for sales. They use to take the funds from the Commission agents to whom they sell the timber wood. After selling it out they use to distribute the profit which is infact a labour which has come in their share.8
Once we have sold the standing trees and get the payment we are least bothered about their further working and disposal. We could not force them to come for appearance before the Income Tax Authorities , however we could procure the affidavits from them.
• Assessee is a Agriculturist and do not have any other source of Income except bank Interest.
• Assessee has filed his return of Income at Rs. 2457.00 inspite of the fact that basic exemption limit was Rs. 1,80,000.00plus Savings U/s 80C which was Rs. 25509.00. Thus the Assessee is not keen to show extra Income. Thus the question of showing Income from sale of Safeda trees without having actual income does not arises.
• An affidavit from Numberdar of the Village Ghel is attached herewith stating that there was plantation of safeda trees during the period under consideration.
• An Affidavit from Neighbors of the different pieces of the Land is attached herewith stating that there was plantation which was sold during the period under consideration.
• The Total Area of the Plantation has duly been evidenced by the ways of Khasra wise Maps attached with the submisison. • The Learned A.O's decision is based on following points :-
1. That plantation could not be on boundaries if it is in Two Rows (Double Line), which is wrong and has been proved with the help of Figure 1, which is actual and as per Normal practice of plantation.
2. That the circumference of Khasra No. 51,20,11 could not be 9940fts, which is wrong and based on illogical arithmetical calculations and against the facts of the case.
In view of the above, it is requested to kindly delete the addition which is wrong, unjustified and against the facts of the case. "
5. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. His findings in para 3.6 and 4 are reproduced as under :
"3.6 I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions. It is evident from the facts recorded in the assessment order as also from the submissions of the appellant that there is no documentary evidence of 9 plantation of Safeda Trees by the appellant on the boundary of the agricultural land. The Girdawari filed by the appellant does not show any Safeda Tree having been grown. In these circumstances the appellant's claim is based on circumstantial evidence. In this regard, the appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain through circumstantial evidence also that he had earned agricultural income of Rs. 18 lakhs on account of sale of Safeda Trees. The AO has clearly pointed out that as claimed by the appellant, if the trees were grown in double raw in a part of Khasra No. 51 then the inner raw would have been a part of the Girdawari report. The appellant has not been able to explain this discrepancy pointed out by the AO. Further, the appellant has also failed to provide any evidence with regard to the receipt of sale proceed amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs. Although, the Safeda Trees were claimed to have been sold to two persons namely Sh. Tarwar and Sh. Sarwan Kumar, both of Saharanpur, these persons failed to appear in response to the summons issued by the AO (In one case, even the address as provided by the appellant was wrong address) nor were they produced by the appellant in support of its claim in-spite of repeated opportunities. In these circumstances, the claim of cash receipt on account of sale of Safeda Trees remains unverified. The onus lies on the appellant to furnish evidence with regard to the claim of agricultural income. The appellant has failed to discharge his onus. In these circumstances, the appellant's claim of agricultural income on account of sale of Safeda Trees is mere self serving statement. The addition made by the AO is accordingly confirmed. These grounds of appeal are dismissed.
4. In the result the appeal of the appellant is dismissed."
6. I have heard ld. Representatives of both the parties. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and submitted that assessee is holding 51.5 acres of land which is not in dispute. Copies of land holdings are filed at pages 6 to 8 and copies of Jamabandi of 51.5 acre of agricultural land were filed at PB-12 to 25 of the Paper Book. PB-11 is statement of assessable income showing assessee has small saving interest of Rs. 2457/-. The assessee is agriculturist and do not have any source of income except bank interest and agricultural income. The statement of agriculture income 10 in preceding assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 has been filed alongwith acknowledgement of filing of the return of income for earlier years. He has submitted that agriculture incomes earned by assessee have not been disputed. The assessee filed certificate of Halka Patwari/Tehsildar confirming that safeda treed planted on boundaries of fields are not recorded in the girdawari/revenue record, therefore, copy of the same is filed at page 38-39 of the Paper Book which have also not been disputed by the authorities below. Explanation of the assessee regarding plantation of Safeda Trees at the distance of 6 feet in double row and circumference explained before the authorities below, have also not been disputed and rebutted by the authorities below. The confirmation of sale of Safeda Trees are filed at page 30 to 37 of the Paper Book. Merely because the purchasers of the safeda trees did not appear before authorities below after considerable lapse, is no ground to reject contention of the assessee. The assessee also filed affidavit of Numbardar of the village Shri Ram Prashad and affidavits of neighbourers Shri Yashpal Singh, Shri Bachittar Singh and Shri Akhilesh Kumar before the ld. CIT(Appeals), copies of which are filed in the Paper Book at pages 40 to 43 of the Paper Book on which no inquiry have been held. The findings of the Assessing Officer are merely based on assumption without any basis. Since assessee has only agriculture income and there is no material on record to show any vested interest or motive with the assessee to 11 declare agriculture income higher than the actual amount, therefore, addition is wholly unjustified. In support of his contention, he has relied upon decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT, Chandigarh-2 V Kartar Singh, Karta reported in 316 ITR 160.
6(i) On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon orders of the authorities below.
7. I have considered rival submissions. It is not in dispute that assessee is having sufficient land holding to earn agriculture income. The assessee produced J-Form for sale of agriculture produce which has not been disputed by authorities below in accepting the agriculture income. It is also clear from the record that he has declared agriculture income in past also. It is, therefore, proved that assessee is being engaged in activity yielding agriculture income in past as well as during the assessment year under appeal. The dispute is with regard to sale of safeda trees by the assessee which have been sown on boundaries of the agriculture field. The authorities below rejected the claim of sale of safeda trees by the assessee because in the girdawari, the safeda trees planted by the assessee have not been shown. The assessee, however, filed certificate of the concerned Halka Patwari confirming that safeda planted on boundary of the field, are not recorded in the girdawari. Certificate of Tehsildar is filed in the Paper Book which supports explanation of the assessee that when safeda trees were 12 sown on the circumference of the field, there was no requirement to record plantation of safeda trees in the girdawari. The Assessing Officer, instead of believing the certificate of the concerned Halka Patwari or making thorough inquiry into the matter, summarily rejected the above certificate of the revenue authorities without any valid reason or justification. The assessee also explained that safeda trees were planted in double row at a distance and also given the details of circumference as considered by the Assessing Officer but in the calculation and explanation of the assessee, no defects have been pointed out by the authorities below and even the authorities below have not made any investigation into this aspect whether the details given by assessee were correct as per record. 7(i) The Assessing Officer has made a calculation of himself with regard to planting of safeda trees on inner and outer line but rejected the explanation of the assessee without any valid reasons. The Assessing Officer, merely, on presumption considered that safeda trees planted in double row would make that inner line tree must have fallen within the field, therefore, such facts should be recorded in the girdawari. There was no basis or justification for the Assessing Officer to record such a finding. It is merely presumption of the Assessing Officer that trees would be falling in the agriculture field. If Assessing Officer, had any doubt about explanation of the assessee, he could have verify this fact from the revenue Deptt. or could make inquiries from the concerned revenue 13 officers, but Assessing Officer did not do so. The Assessing Officer also rejected the claim of the assessee because the persons who have purchased the safeda trees, have not been produced. The assessee, however, filed confirmation of the sale of safeda trees and written agreement with the purchasers, and if at a later stage, the purchaser did not appear before the Assessing Officer, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee. The assessee filed affidavit of Shri Ram Prashad, Numbardar of the village who has also confirmed that assessee has sown safeda trees on the boundary of about 18 acres of land and out of which, some of the area was sown in double row. This fact is confirmed by three neighbourers in their affidavits of the same village who have land adjoining to the land of the assessee. These affidavits were filed before ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, if ld. CIT(Appeals) was having any doubt on the same, he could have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer at appellate stage for getting the facts confirmed from the neighbourers and Numbardar of the village. Therefore, such a circumstance would not be adverse in nature against the assessee.
7(ii) The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jarnail Singh (Karta) (supra) in which it was held as 14 under :
"The Revenue has filed the present appeal under section 260A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act" ), against the order dated August 21, 2007, passed by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B, in I. T. A. No. 963/Chandi/2006 and has sought to raise the following substantial question of law :
" Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse, being based on conjectures and surmises and the findings of the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) have been ignored without any cogent material ?"
The assessee declared agricultural income at Rs. 7,50,000 from cultivation of 36 acres of own agricultural land and 6 acres of leased agricultural land. In support of the said declaration, the assessee produced revenue record, J- forms and claimed that the agricultural income was net of expenses at 25 per cent. However, the submissions of the assessee were not accepted by the Assessing Officer, who determined the agricultural income of the assessee at Rs. 5,52,561 holding that the yield declared was high. The remaining income of Rs. 1,97,439 was taxed as income from other sources, vide order dated January 16, 2006.
Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, vide his order dated October 24, 2006.
Not satisfied with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was filed by the assessee, which was allowed, vide order dated August 21, 2007. While allowing the appeal, the Tribunal held that the assessee, who is an agriculturist, has produced evidence on record, in support of his claim and the income declared by him on estimate basis is bona fide. The findings of the Tribunal in this regard are reproduced :
15
" I have considered the rival submissions carefully. Firstly, it is abundantly clear from the record that the assessee has declared agricultural income in the past also. The factum of the assessee being engaged in the activity yielding agricultural income in the past as well as during the year under consideration is not in dispute. The dispute essentially revolves around the quantum of agricultural income declared for the reason that the assessee does not maintain any regular books of account in this regard. The assessee claimed to have estimated his agricultural income by reducing from the gross sale realisation the expenses to the extent of 25 per cent. This manner of declaring agricultural income itself shows that it has been declared on estimate basis. Now, the issue is as to whether the estimate made by the assessee can be construed as reasonable considering the claim of agricultural operations carried out, size of land holdings, past history, etc. In this context, we find that the assessee has attempted to explain that it had 36 acres of land under cultivation, partly owned by him and partly belonging to his brother in addition to 6 acres of land taken on lease. The Assessing Officer did not accept the plea of the assessee with respect to the leased land for the reason that it was not substantiated. In so far as the non-acceptance of the quantum of agricultural income is concerned, the Assessing Officer referred to a journal of Haryana Agricultural University to deduce as to what should be per acre yield from the land owned by the assessee. On that basis, he held that the yield declared by the assessee was high. In my considered opinion the approach of the Assessing Officer was manifested by the reason that in the absence of the books of account, the agricultural income was not verifiable. This aspect is justified. However, the approach adopted thereafter by the Assessing Officer of not going by the material adduced by the assessee in support of the estimate is also wrong for the reason that there is no finding much less a whisper that the material sought to be relied upon by the assessee was lacking in credibility. In fact, the certificate of average income per acre of land obtained from village ` Patwari' which indicates an income level of Rs.36,000 per acre, cannot be brushed aside. Moreover, the assessee submitted the ` J-Forms' evidencing sale of agricultural produce but subjecting the same to microscopic scrutiny to cull out the yield, etc., is an unjustified exercise. What the Assessing Officer was to essentially do was to only verify the estimates made by 16 the assessee. No doubt, there is always an element of subjectivity in estimation. Unless it can be made out that the estimate is on a wild basis or is totally lacking in bona fides only then the Assessing Officer would be justified in substituting his estimates in the place of estimation done by the assessee. There is no such exercise on the part of the Assessing Officer emerging in the instant case. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, in my view, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for having derived agricultural income of Rs. 7,50,000 for the year under consideration. Moreover, in the immediately preceding year, the assessee has declared agricultural income of Rs.7,00,000. No doubt, the income for the assessment year 2002-03 has not been subjected to scrutiny assessment yet the trend of income declared cannot be lost sight of while considering the efficacy of income declared by the assessee.
Moreover, there is no material on record to show any vested interest or motive with the assessee to declare agriculture income higher than the actual amount. This is for the reason that the copies of the bank account do not show any investment made by the assessee. In fact, the assessee has supported his plea by filing an affidavit to the effect that the income earned during the assessment year under consideration was spent on agriculture inputs or household expenses. Thus, the estimate declared by the assessee can be construed as bona fide. Therefore, I am inclined to uphold the stand of the assessee."
Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, learned counsel for the Revenue, has argued that the agricultural income declared by the assessee was on an estimate basis and the same was on the higher side considering the yield available from the land in question and, therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse and are based upon conjectures and surmises and the findings of the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) have been ignored without any written material on record.
We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and perused the record. We find no merit in the contention raised by counsel for the Revenue appellant. The Tribunal has given a pure finding of fact after considering the evidence on record with regard to the agricultural 17 income of the assessee. We find that the approach adopted by the Assessing Officer, by not relying upon the material produced by the assessee in support of the estimation of income is wrong, because there is no finding that the material sought to be relied upon by the assessee was lacking in credibility. The certificate of average income per acre of land issued by the Village Patwari indicates the income level of Rs. 36,000 per acre which cannot be ignored. Moreover, the assessee had submitted the J-forms evidencing the sale of agricultural produce. No doubt, there is always an element of subjectivity in estimation. However, if it can be made out that the estimate is without any basis or is totally lacking the bona fides and only then the Assessing Officer would be justified in substituting his estimate in place of the estimation of agricultural income done by the assessee. There is no such situation in this case. In fact, there is no material on record to show any vested interest or motive with the assessee to declare the agricultural income higher than the actual amount. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in the present case and the appeal is dismissed being without any merit.
8. In the case of Shri Jarnail Singh, Karta (supra), Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that there is no finding that material sought to be relied upon by the assessee was lacking in credibility. The certificate of village Patwari indicating average income per acre of land was held, could not be ignored. In the case of the assessee, the assessee has not only produced certificate from Halka Patwari explaining safeda trees planted on boundaries of the field, are not recorded in the revenue record, was also supported by certificate of the Tehsildar that no entry of safeda trees is noted in the revenue record, if planted on boundaries. The affidavit of Numbardar Shri Ram Prashad is also filed in support of the sowing of the safeda trees by the assessee. Therefore, there 18 was no basis to reject explanation of the assessee in this regard. In the case of Shri Jarnail Singh (Karta) (supra), the certificate of the Patwari was relied upon, therefore, the documentary evidences of the revenue officers in case of assessee, as noted above when produced before authorities below, should not have been ignored. Further, it is a fact that assessee has merely small interest income on savings. The assessee has no other income except agriculture income. Therefore, there is no material on record to show any vested interest or motive with the assessee to declare agriculture income higher than the actual amount. The authorities below have made and confirmed the addition of Rs. 18 lcs on account of 'income from other sources' under section 68/69 of the Act but authorities below have failed to point out as to what income is earned by assessee from "other sources" because assessee has no other source of income except the agriculture income. The interest is from specified source and ascertained. Therefore, in the absence of any material on record that what is the 'other income' of the assessee except that of agriculture income, I am of the view the decision in the case of Shri Jarnail Singh (Karta) (supra) clearly applies in favour of the assessee. This fact is further strengthened by the fact that even in earlier years, assessee has shown the agriculture income. Therefore, there is no question of assessee earning any 'income from other sources' other than the agriculture income. 19
9. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, explanation of the assessee and material on record, I am of the view addition of Rs. 18 lacs is wholly unjustified treating the agriculture income as 'income from other sources'. I, therefore, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the addition of Rs. 18 lacs.
10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/-
(BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 29 t h November,2016.
'Poonam' Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. The CIT,DR Assistant Registrar, I TAT Chandigarh