Case Law Details
Smt. Janakba Maheshdan Gadhvi Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Ahmedabad addressed two appeals filed by Janakba Maheshdan Gadhv against orders issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, concerning the assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14. The core issue revolved around the assessment of agricultural income and the subsequent addition of substantial amounts to the assesses income under the head “Income from Other Sources.” The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment for 2011-12, citing discrepancies between the initially declared agricultural income and the revised figures, perceiving the initial declaration as a means to accommodate undisclosed income. The assessee had initially declared a significant agricultural income, but later revised it, explaining that the initial declaration was for a joint family income and that the large bank deposits were connected to a housing loan. The Assessing Officer, however, added Rs. 26,18,834 to the assesses income, treating the agricultural income as unaccounted income.
The assessee appealed this decision to the CIT(A), who upheld the Assessing Officer’s order. The ITAT, upon reviewing the case, found that the assessee had provided substantial evidence, including bank statements, loan disbursement details, and records of agricultural produce sales, to support her claim of genuine agricultural income. The ITAT noted that the assessee had explained the discrepancies in the declared income, attributing them to the joint nature of the agricultural income and the need to show higher income for loan purposes. The ITAT concluded that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had disregarded the evidence presented by the assessee. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assesses appeals, setting aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer and accepting the assesses claim of joint agricultural income. The ITAT also addressed the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14, which involved similar issues, and allowed that appeal as well, effectively ruling in favor of the assessee in both cases.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
These two appeals are filed by the assessee against two different orders dated 19.03.2019 & 04.12.2017 passed by the CIT(A), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad for the assessment Years 2011-12 & 2013-14 respectively.
2. As identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in both these appeals, grounds raised in ITA No.953/Ahd/20193 for Assessment Year 2011-12 arere produced as under :-
“1. That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act.
2. That the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law, and on facts, in confirming the addition of Rs.27,67,834/- made as income from undisclosed sources, instead of accepting the same as agricultural income earned by the appellant and family members, completely ignoring the evidence on record furnished by the appellant.
3. That on facts, evidence on record, and as per law, the entire addition ought to have been deleted and genuine agricultural income which is also duly verified u/s.133(6) of the Act ought to have been accepted as ”
3. Assessment Year 2011-12 is being taken up first. The assessee filed return of income on 22.07.2011 declaring taxable income at Nil and has shown agricultural income of Rs 21,42,815/-. The Assessing Officer observed that for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14, the assessee filed return of income on 19.06.2014 declaring taxable income at Nil and has shown agricultural income of Rs.28,53,542/-. Thereafter, case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reason “Large Agricultural Income”. Th case was scrutinized under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order was passed on 30.03.2016 thereby assessing the income as agricultural income, as the assessee earned income from undisclosed source of income and added the same to the total income of the assessee under the head “Income from Other Sources”. As regards A.Y. 2011-12 i.e. the year under consideration, the agricultural income was shown at Rs.21,42,815/-. As there is no taxable agricultural income, as it is for the rate purpose only, this modus operandi adopted by the assessee for creation of capital by accommodating undisclosed income was taken into account by the Assessing Officer. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act with prior approval of the PCIT and notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 03.2017 was served upon the assessee. Notice under Section 142(1) read with Section 129 of the Act alongwith Questionnaire was issued on 15.06.2017 and was served upon the assessee. In response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 04.11.2017 the assessee filed return of income thereby declaring taxable income at Nil and share in agriculture income at Rs.1,49,000/-. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served to the assessee on 15.11.2017. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act was supplied to the assessee on 15.11.2017 and the assessee filed objection on 06.02.2017 which was rejected vide order dated 08.12.2017. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee is doing house hold activity and having share in-come from agricultural income for which the assessee submitted books of account, cash book, bank book, coy of ITR, computation of total income, ledger account of share in agricultural income. The Assessing Officer vide notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 17.07.2017 asked the assessee to furnish complete details of agricultural income/procedure during the A.Y. 2011-12 and also agricultural land holding documents. The assessee did not comply with the said notice as mentioned in paragraph no.7 of the Assessment Order. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis for the earlier documents and made addition of Rs.26,18,834/- under the head “Income from Other Sources” and treated the agricultural income as accommodating unaccounted income earned from undisclosed sources.
4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. The AR submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs 27,67,834/- made as income from undisclosed sources instead of accepting the same as agricultural income earned by the assessee and her family members, completely ignoring the evidence on record furnished by the as-sessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the entire addition ought to have been deleted and the genuine agricultural income which is duly reflected and verified under Section 133(6) of the Act should have been accepted by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that the amount deposited as received from agricultural income is clearly mentioned in the bank accounts and bank details. Entries of large sums are also reflected in the bank account which was related to sanction/disbursement of housing loan from Union Bank of India and for that the assessee has submitted the details such as bank statement and certificates of the Bank along with affidavit from Mr. Hasmukhbhai Dalwadi in respect of the transactions. The Ld. AR further submitted that there was complete set of evidence produced before the Assessing Officer. In fact, there is confirmation which is also produced before the Assessing Officer including receipts of the Agricultural produce which was sold by the assessee and her family members in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mehsana. All these documents clearly set out that the assessee is deriving agricultural income to the extent of Rs.3,37,795/- in A.Y. 2012-13 and prior to that in A.Y. 2011- 12 she is deriving only agricultural income of Rs.1,49,000/-. The large amount has been reflected as home loan disbursement which should have been taken into account by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A) as the assessee has explained it was for the construction of new house which is her residing house.
6. The DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A).
7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The assessee/ld.AR at the time of hearing submitted that the original return of income was filed inadvertently in respect of joint agricultural income derived by the assessee and her family and to justify it, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee required home loan and for that purpose, may be the assessee must have shown the higher agricultural income in A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13. The assessee after receiving the notice under Section 148 of the Act has filed the revised return thereby share in agricultural income was shown at 1,49,000/- and after going through the same assessee has also filed the relevant documents to justify her claim of joint agricultural income which was 21,42,815/- and the share of the individual i.e. the assessee of agricultural income at Rs.1,49,000/-. The documents produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) clearly set out that agricultural income was jointly earned by the family of the assessee and not individual income of agricultural produce was shown in the earlier returns. The assessee, in fact, has explained all these details before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) and, therefore, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) has totally ignored the evidence produced by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as before the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). Thus, ITA No 953/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2011- 12 of the assessee is allowed.
8. As regards ITA No.1101/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14, the same is identical and hence the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 15th January, 2025.
Author Bio
