Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Sh. Ajmer Singh, Jalandhar vs The Income-Tax Officer, Phagwara on 28 February, 2017
In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal,
(Circuit Bench At Jalandhar)
Before : Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And
Shri T.S. Kapoor,Accountant Member
ITA No. 457(Asr.)/2014
Assessment Year: 2007-08
Sh. Ajmer Singh, C/o Sodhi vs.. Income-tax Officer,
and Samra Traders, Vill. Ward-2, Phagwara.
Jandiala, Teh. Phillaur
(Jalandhar)
(PAN: BGFPS2139L)
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Rakesh Joshi, Advocate
Revenue by Smt. Balvinder Kaur, DR
Date of Hearing 24.01.2017
Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2017
ORDER
Per A.D. Jain, J.M.:
This is assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s action in confirming addition of Rs.8,28,000/- as income from undisclosed sources instead of agricultural income.
2. The brief facts, as per CIT(A)'s order, are that the assessee is an individual and a partner in the firm namely M/s Sodhi & Samra which deals in the trading of timber. The assessee filed his ITA No. 457/Asr./2014 2 return of income for the year under consideration on 14.11.2007 declaring therein an income of Rs.1,14,250/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee in its return had shown agricultural income of Rs.18,00,000/- for rate purposes. The Assessing Officer made detailed enquiries with regard to the earning of the huge agriculture income by making independent enquiries. During the course of enquiries, it had been found that the assessee had furnished J-Form in respect of an agricultural income receipt of Rs.7,04,292/-, the authenticity and genuineness of which could not be proved by the assessee. It had also been noticed that some receipts of the agriculture income had not been disclosed by the assessee and the same came to the notice of the Assessing Officer during the course of enquiries. The detail in respect of agriculture expenses was also not found to be maintained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made enquiries with regard to the agricultural land owned by the assessee and the agricultural land belonging to others which had been stated to be taken by the assessee on lease for earning agriculture income. In respect of land belonging to others, the ITA No. 457/Asr./2014 3 Assessing Officer had found that the name of assessee was not mentioned as user of land in the Government records. The Assessing Officer also made enquiries with regard to per acre yield of wheat, paddy and sugarcane and with regard to per acre expenses from the concerned Government Authorities. After taking into account all the information gathered during the course of assessment proceedings, as well as the submissions made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer estimated the agricultural income of the assessee at Rs.9,72,000/-,as against the declared agricultural income of Rs.18,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated the balance agriculture income of Rs.8,28,000/- as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources and made an addition of Rs.8,28,000/- to the returned income of the assessee. Apart from this, another agreed addition of Rs.4,911/- was also made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed interest income. The assessment in the case of the assessee was, therefore, completed by the Assessing Officer vide order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2009, at an assessed income of ITA No. 457/Asr./2014 4 Rs.9,47,160/- + Agricultural Income of Rs.9,72,000/- for rate purposes.
3. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition holding as follows :
"6.4 I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer as made by him in the assessment order as well as in the remand report. I have also considered the written submissions of the assessee as well as its counter comments on the report of the Assessing Officer. I have further considered the additional evidences produced by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings. In my opinion, the additional evidences now produced by the assessee only support the arguments taken by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. In my further opinion, the assessee could have easily produced these evidences during the course of assessment proceedings as these documents further support the arguments of the assessee taken during the course of assessment proceedings that Munim of M/s Samra Commission Agents has cheated him and issued him the bogus J-Form. In my considered opinion, although the Assessing Officer has objected to the admission of additional evidence but the same should be admitted for the sake of justice. Moreover, there is nothing new which is being brought on record by producing additional evidence. I, therefore, admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings for the sake of justice.
6.5 On careful consideration of the material brought on record, I am of the opinion that the assessee failed to prove that he earned agriculture income of Rs. 18,00,000/- during the year under consideration. Even the production of additional evidence will not help the assessee as whatever has been stated in the additional evidences has already been considered by the Assessing ITA No. 457/Asr./2014 5 Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The production of additional evidences also appears to be an afterthought. The assessee could not even disprove the authenticity of the information collected by the Assessing Officer from the Government Authorities with regard to the yield and expenses. The assessee also failed to provide any evidence with regard to the sale of wheat by Munim of M/s Samra Commission Agents to others. Affidavit filed by M/s Samra Commission Agents is a self serving document. Similarly, the document produced by the assessee with regard to meeting of Gram Panchayat is also a self serving documents and cannot be relied upon in the absence of core evidence with regard to sale of wheat in respect of which bogus J-Form has been submitted before the Assessing Officer. Moreover, the production of wheat from the same area of land cannot be more than the production of paddy as is apparent from the report of the Government Authorities whereas the assessee has shown more production of wheat than paddy from the same area of land under cultivation. This is also a known fact that the average agriculture expenses ranges between 40% to 55% depending upon the crop grown but the assessee has shown only expenses of Rs.5,24,424/- for earning agriculture income of Rs.23,24,424/- which also include the expenses paid by assessee to other persons whose land has been taken on lease. If the land is taken on lease the expenses will be more but the expenses shown by the assessee are almost half the expenses which are usually incurred for earning agriculture income.
6.6 In view of the above stated facts and in the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has passed a well reasoned order which do not require any interference. I, therefore, uphold the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.8,28,000/- to the returned income of the assessee by treating the excess agriculture income shown by the assessee to the extent of, Rs.8,28,000/- as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee has not asked for cross ITA No. 457/Asr./2014 6 examination of Shri Pavittar Singh during the course of appellate proceedings. In my opinion, the acceptance of higher agriculture income in any preceding or succeeding year will also not make any difference as the facts prevailing in those years may be different. In the result, grounds No. 2 to 11 of appeal token by the assessee are dismissed.
7. The ground No. 12 of appeal taken by the assessee is consequential in nature and do not require any adjudication as per settled position of law with regard to charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act."
4. The assessee has placed on record before us (APB 1-20) copies (English Translation) of Khasra Girdawaries pertaining to the land of assessee, for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09, as evidence that wheat was cultivated on the land during F.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08. These Khasra Girdawaries are stated to have been filed before the AO. A perusal of the orders of both the authorities below shows that neither of them has taken into consideration these Khasra Girdawaries before passing their respective orders.
5. A Khasra Girdawari is the primary document evidencing cultivation of agricultural crops, or absence thereof over land. If such documentary evidence is produced, non-consideration ITA No. 457/Asr./2014 7 thereof would result in an order passed as a result of non- reading of such material documentary evidence, rendering the order unsustainable in law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remit this matter to the file of the AO, to be decided afresh in accordance with law on taking into consideration these Khasra Girdawaries, provided the assessee files before him the original certified copies thereof in the vernacular along with the English translation copies filed before us. The assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of hearing to support his case and, no doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before AO. All pleas available to the assessee under the law shall remain so available to him.
6. In the result, for statistical purposes, appeal is treated as allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(T.S. Kapoor) (A.D. Jain)
Accountant Member Judicial member
Dated: 28.02.2017.
*aks*
ITA No. 457/Asr./2014 8
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar