IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.494/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Shri Parvinder Singh, Income Tax Officer, Panipat, PANBSUPS3274D vs., Ward-3, Palika Bazar, C/o. Devinder K Jain & Associates, 206, 2nd Floor, Panipat, PIN 132 103 79, Kedarnath Marg, Haryana. Daryaganj, New Delhi-002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Kartik Jain, C.A. And For Assessee : Shri D.K. Jain, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 19.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2019 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against order of Ld. CIT(A), Karnal, Dated 26th November, 2018 for assessment year 2015-16, challenging addition of Rs.10,78,544/-. 2. Briefly facts of case are that return of income was filed on 16th March, 2016 declaring taxable income at Rs.2,70,010/- + agricultural income of 2 ITA.No.494/Del./2019 Shri Parvinder Singh, Panipat. Rs.24,78,544/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. case was selected for scrutiny to examine issue of large agricultural income. assessee derived income from salary and agricultural produce. assessee was asked to produce Form-J, copy of fard, Jamabandi and bank account for relevant assessment year. assessee produced copy of girdauri and capital account of assessee. assessee claimed that he is owner of 48 Kanals of agricultural land and has also cultivated land of his brothers namely Shri Satbir and Shri Randhir Singh, who owned 96 kanals of agricultural land. Therefore, assessing officer asked for further details and details of family members of assessee. Assessee produced copy of fard of agricultural land owned by assessee. Perusal of fard reveals that assessee owned 6 acres of agricultural land only, whereas assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.24,78,544/- in assessment year under appeal which is very much on higher side as against agricultural land owned by assessee. assessee was asked to furnish details of land holdings 3 ITA.No.494/Del./2019 Shri Parvinder Singh, Panipat. by him along with land taken on lease, in confirmation of cultivation of agricultural land. assessee submitted affidavit of Shri Satbir and Randhir Singh along with copy of agreement made with Shri Rajesh confirming lease of land taken by assessee. A.O. noted that reply of assessee would reveal that assessee cultivated 28 acres of land during year, out of which, 6 acres owned by him and remaining 22 acres was taken on lease from various persons. Ultimately, reply of Counsel for Assessee was received through DAK in which assessee stated that it is not possible to produce balance sheet and statement of affairs of assessee. However, bank statement of assessee is produced and requested that agricultural income of Rs.10,97,931/- as per revised return filed by assessee may be accepted. 2.1. assessing officer noted that assessee is partner in firm M/s. Sun Research and Breeding Farm and amount of salary and interest received from firm has been shown as income from business or profession. assessee was asked to furnish details of agricultural income 4 ITA.No.494/Del./2019 Shri Parvinder Singh, Panipat. earned. assessee submitted that he was cultivating 48 kanals of agricultural land which is owned by him and 96 kanals taken on lease from his brothers namely Shri Satbir and Shri Randhir Singh. Commission Agent was also called for whose statement was recorded on oath who have stated that assessee has sold agricultural crops with them only during assessment year under appeal and prior to it or subsequent to assessment year no agricultural produce was sold and that sale consideration of agricultural produce was made in cash. Statement of Shri Satbir and Shri Randhir Singh were also recorded as they were produced by assessee because of summons sent to them which could not be served upon them. In statement of Shri Satbir, he has stated that he was retired as JBT Master and owns 6 acres of agricultural land, out of which, 4 acres are being cultivated by him and 2 acres has been given to assessee on lease. He was asked to explain whether any loan has been taken on Kisan Credit Card on agricultural land owned by him. In response thereto, it is stated by him that he has availed this facility from 5 ITA.No.494/Del./2019 Shri Parvinder Singh, Panipat. Bank. assessing officer noted that loan on Kisan Credit Card is being given on basis of agricultural land cultivated by Farmer. Further, same was position in case of Shri Randhir Singh brother of assessee. assessing officer, therefore, noted that Shri Satbir and Randhir Singh both brothers of assessee had cultivated their agricultural land by themselves and no part of such land have been given to assessee. assessing officer, therefore, asked assessee as to why agricultural land owned by him of 6 acres may not be considered for purpose of estimating agricultural income at Rs.3 lacs in total and rest be not treated as income from undisclosed sources. assessee in order to justify his explanation immediately changed his statement and submitted that he has also taken 14 acres of agricultural land from Shri Rajesh and cultivated during assessment year under appeal. In support of same land, agreement was also furnished which revealed that it has been purchased on 8th June 2017 and was also executed on same day on 8th June 2017. assessing officer has also noted that 6 ITA.No.494/Del./2019 Shri Parvinder Singh, Panipat. assessee has concocted story of taking land on lease from Shri Rajesh. assessing officer further noted during assessment proceedings that assessee filed revised income tax return reducing agricultural income from Rs.24,78,544/- to Rs.13,67,940/-. Since agricultural income was reduced without any basis, it was not accepted. assessing officer also noted that in preceding assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.7,97,773/- and Rs.8 lacs. In subsequent assessment year 2016-17 assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs.5 lacs only. assessing officer, therefore, noted that assessee has shown very high agricultural income and same have not been substantiated through any evidence or material on record. Thus, assessee has also failed to prove any fact before assessing officer. assessing officer, therefore, considering totality of facts and circumstances, considered that assessee has cultivated 28 acres of land and estimated that assessee has earned agricultural income of Rs.50,000/- per acre, therefore, estimated agricultural 7 ITA.No.494/Del./2019 Shri Parvinder Singh, Panipat. income of Rs.14 lacs and rest of amount of Rs.10,78,544/- was considered as income from other sources, addition of which, was made to returned income. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed addition and dismissed appeal of assessee. 3. I have heard Learned Representatives of both parties and perused findings of authorities below. Learned Counsel for Assessee referred to copy of return of income filed at page number 98 of paper book and referred to PB-109 to show that gross agricultural income was shown in return in sum of Rs.24,78,544/- and expenses have been shown at NIL [zero]. He has submitted that wrongly expenses could not be shown in return. PB-52 is profit and loss account of agricultural income to show total agricultural income receipts in sum of Rs.24,78,952/- and after expenses, net profit have been shown in sum of Rs.10,97,930/-. He has submitted that assessee produced all Mandi receipts and also produced all persons whose land have been taken on lease. Therefore, burden upon assessee has been 8 ITA.No.494/Del./2019 Shri Parvinder Singh, Panipat. proved that assessee earned agricultural income. Therefore, addition may be deleted. 4. On other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon Orders of authorities below and submitted that assessee revised return of income to reduce agricultural income and no evidence of doing any agricultural activity have been filed by assessee. In earlier and subsequent assessment years, assessee has shown lesser agricultural income. Therefore addition is wholly justified. 5. I have considered rival submissions and do not find any merit in appeal of assessee. assessee claimed to have earned agricultural income of Rs.24,78,544/- in return of income. same amount have been shown in return of income as gross agricultural receipts. expenditure incurred on agriculture have been shown at NIL [zero]. It is highly improbable that without incurring any expenditure assessee would have earned such agricultural income. assessee in profit and loss account has claimed agricultural 9 ITA.No.494/Del./2019 Shri Parvinder Singh, Panipat. expenses and net profit on account of agricultural income have been shown at Rs.10,97,930/-. This fact itself disentitle assessee for making claim of higher agricultural income. assessee and his brothers were not having huge agricultural land so as to earn that much huge agricultural income. It may also be noted here that assessee has filed revised return of income during assessment proceedings reducing agricultural income from Rs.24,78,544/- to Rs.13,67,940/-. Though this revised return was not accepted by assessing officer, but, it would show that assessee has in fact not earned huge agricultural income of Rs.24,78,544/-. assessee in earlier year as well as in subsequent years have shown meager agricultural income ranges from Rs.5 lacs to Rs.8 lacs only. assessee did not produce any sufficient documentary evidences before authorities below to claim huge agricultural income of Rs.24,78,544/- earned out of small agricultural land holdings. agreement with Shri Rajesh was executed on 8th June 2017 i.e., after closure of financial year relevant to assessment year under appeal. 10 ITA.No.494/Del./2019 Shri Parvinder Singh, Panipat. Therefore, it is concocted and fabricated by assessee. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of case and conduct of assessee in changing stand at different level and claiming lesser agricultural income before authorities below would clearly show that authorities below were very reasonable in estimating agricultural income at Rs.14 lacs, though assessee claimed lesser amount of same subsequently. Therefore, authorities below were justified in considering Rs.10,78,544/- as income from other sources. No interference is called for in matter. I, therefore, dismiss appeal of assessee. 6. In result, appeal of assessee dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court. Sd/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi, Dated 2nd September, 2019 VBP/- 11 ITA.No.494/Del./2019 Shri Parvinder Singh, Panipat. Copy to 1. appellant 2. respondent 3. CIT(A) concerned 4. CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT SMC Bench 6. Guard File //By Order// Asst. Registrar : ITAT : Delhi Benches : Delhi. Date of dictation 20.08.2019 Date on which typed draft order is placed before 30.08.2019 dictation Member Date on which approval draft comes to Sr. PS 02.09.2019 Date on which fair order is placed before 02.09.2019 Dictation member for pronouncement Date on which fair order comes back to Sr. P.S. 02.09.2019 Date on which final order is uploaded on 02.09.2019 website of ITAT Date on which file goes to Bench Clerk 03.09.2019 Date on which file goes to Head Clerk date on which file goes to Assistant Registrar for signature on order Date of dispatch of Order. Parvinder Singh v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-3, Panipat