lwsaQ V. NAGAR, M.Pa

ITA 1998/AGR/2023

• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2023

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.232/Agr./2009 Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Shri Arshad Sardar Khan, vs. Income Tax Officer, Taleem Manzil, Ward-IV, Aligarh. Marris Road, Aligarh. (PAN: AHFP 8634 A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Arshad Sardar Khan, assessee Respondent by : Shri A.K. Sharma, Jr. D.R. ORDER The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 06.02.2009 passed by the ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad on the following grounds :- “1. That the lower authorities were wrong in facts and in law in treating the agricultural income at Rs.2,00,000/- of fruits from mango orchard as income from other sources. Various observations made by the learned lower authorities were not correct. The learned lower authorities by mistake not considered the evidence of electric payment passbook for watering the orchard, certificate of Tehsildar about agricultural income and certificate of head department of botany A.M.U., Aligarh about the orchard which were filed before the lower authorities. Printed from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.in Printed from itatorders.in 2 Various observations made in the assessment order are untenable and the documentary evidences were not properly appreciated. 2. That without prejudice to ground 1 above the learned lower authorities were not justified in facts and in law in treating the whole of the agricultural income as non agricultural income i.e. income of other sources. The addition as made is illegal, wrong and at any rate very very excessive in view of the fact that the agricultural income of the appellant is from agricultural owned land from earlier years. 3. That the tax charged and interest thereon u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is illegal and very very excessive. 4. That the appellant reserves the right to add, amend, delete, alter, modify the grounds of appeal” 2. The facts narrated by the Revenue Authorities are not disputed by both the parties. Therefore, no need to repeat the same for the sake of convenience. 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is late by 162 days. Shri Arshad Sardar Khan, the assessee, appeared in person and filed an application along with affidavit dated 26.04.2011 in support of condonation of delay of 162 days. He requested that the reasons mentioned in the affidavit are sufficient reason to condone the delay in dispute and may be condoned in the interest of justice. Printed from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.in Printed from itatorders.in 3 4. The contends of the application along with the affidavit has been conveyed to the ld. Departmental Representative. He has not raised any objection on the condonation of delay. 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the averments made by the assessee in the affidavit dated 26.04.2011, I am of the considered opinion that the reasons mentioned by the assessee in the affidavit for condonation of delay of 162 days are that the order of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad was received by the assessee on 28.03.2009 and the appeal was filed on 25.05.2009 along with challan of Rs.2,510/- and other annexures. The fee was calculated and paid at Rs.2,510/- i.e. 1% of Rs.2,50,300/-. There was short payment of court fee which came to the knowledge of the assessee afterwards. As soon as the same was brought to the notice of the assessee by the Registry of the Tribunal, the assessee has deposited the same on 20.11.2009. Therefore, the delay in dispute is not intentional and requested for condonation of the same. 6. I am of the considered opinion that the delay in dispute has been caused due to short payment of Court fee which has been paid by the assessee as soon as the same was brought to his notice by the Registry. Therefore, the reasons are Printed from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.in Printed from itatorders.in 4 sufficient to condone the delay and I condone the delay of 162 days in filing the present appeal and admit the present appeal. 7. On merit, the assessee in person appeared and made a statement that the AO as well as the ld. First Appellate Authority has not given sufficient opportunity to produce Shri Ajmat Khan before the AO for substantiating his claim. He further stated that he can produce Shri Ajmat Khan before the AO if this Bench grants him some time to do the same. The assessee has produced all necessary evidences showing the ownership of the land from where his agricultural income has arisen. The main objection of the Revenue is that the assessee has not produced Shri Ajmat Khan to substantiate his claim of Rs.2,00,000/- as agricultural income which has been assessed as income from other sources, which is the only dispute in the present appeal. 8. The ld. Departmental Representative has not raised any objection on the request of the assessee for affording opportunity to the assessee to produce Shri Ajmat Khan for substantiating the claim of the assessee amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- as agricultural income. Printed from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.in Printed from itatorders.in 5 9. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with me, especially the very short request made by the assessee, who appeared in person, because his Counsel has been admitted in hospital due to kidney ailment. I am of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, the assessee is entitled for more opportunity to produce Shri Ajmat Khan before the AO for substantiating the claim of the assessee of Rs.2,00,000/- as agricultural income. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I set aside the issue in dispute, i.e. treating the agricultural income of Rs.2,00,000/- of fruits from mango orchard as income from other sources, to the AO to decide the same afresh under law after giving opportunity to the assessee to produce Shri Ajmat Khan before him and decide the issue in dispute afresh under law. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.04.2011) Sd/- (H.S. SIDHU) Judicial Member Dated: 28 th April, 2011 PBN/* Printed from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.in Printed from itatorders.in 6 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent By Order 3. CIT concerned 4. CIT (Appeals) concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra 6. Guard File Assistant Registrar Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra True Copy Printed from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.inPrinted from itatorders.in Printed from itatorders.in