High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
SMT. KUSUM SHARMA v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK AND A - ITA-136-2006  RD-P&H 5342 (8 August 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
I.T.A. NO. 136 OF 2006
DATE OF DECISION: 1.8.2006
SMT. KUSUM SHARMA
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK AND ANOTHER ....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
PRESENT:MR. AKSHAY BHAN, ADVOCATE
FOR THE APPELLANT
This is an appeal filed by the assessee raising following substantial questions of law, arising out of order passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 124/Chandi/2001, dated 8.9.2005, for the assessment year 1997-98, for opinion of this Court: "(i) Whether in fact and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below in ignoring the evidence put forth by the appellant, thereby, explaining her agricultural income, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ?
(ii) Whether in fact and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below in arriving at the conclusion without following the various judgments as passed by the Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ? (iii) Whether in fact and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below in acting on its own presumption without any basis is legally sustainable in the eyes of law ?
(iv) Whether in fact and circumstances of the case, the action of the authorities below the impugned orders I.T.A. NO. 136 OF 2006 
Annexure A-1 and A-3 are legally sustainable in the eyes of law ?"
The assessee in the present case is wife of Dr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, who derives income from rent and agriculture. The return of income for the assessment year in question was filed on 31.3.1999 declaring her income at Rs. 59,540/-, which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on 29.7.1999.
However, later the case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee in her return has shown sale of agricultural produce. To verify the same, the revenue record was required. As per the revenue record submitted by the assessee, the entries therein did not support the contention of the assessee about sowing crops on the land as claimed. Further though the assessee was based at Jind, but still wheat was shown to have been sold to a dealer M/s Gopi Flour Mills at Delhi. On an inquiry, it was found that no such person existed at the given address. Even the cash memo/ bills produced by the assessee of the buyers of the agricultural produce did not bear any local or central sales tax number. Furthermore, the bills produced by the assessee bearing No. 199 and 200, dated 18.8.1996 and 19.8.1996 respectively reflected the sale of M/s Gopi Flour Mills as it was written thereon that "goods once sold will not be taken back", so this cannot be treated to be the documents to support the plea of the assessee that the same were for sale of goods by the assessee to M/s Gopi Flour Mills. The plea of the assessee was further belied from the fact that she stated that wheat was sold loose by tractor trolly whereas the bills of M/s Gopi Flour Mills shows that it was sold in packing of 90 kg. pack. In any case there was no good reason to go to Delhi for selling when the same could be very well be sold at Jind or at a nereby place. The assessee is not a trader.
Even as regards the sale of paddy, the claim was partially rejected for inflated 'J' form produced by the assessee for alleged sale of paddy. Further even though the assessee was issued 10 and 6 'J' form for Rs. 2,89,077/- and Rs. 1,33,266/- respectively by M/s Ram Parkash Rattan Lal and M/s Ruli Ram Dalip Chand, Commission Agents at Julana Mandi respectively, but still the assessee, for the reasons best known to her, furnished only two 'J' forms each from the above said Commission Agents totalling Rs. 1,09,460/- as against available 'J' forms amounting to Rs.
4,22,343/- available in her name and there was no explanation for the same. Similar was the position with regard to sale of Turi.
The income was assessed on the basis of revenue record for I.T.A. NO. 136 OF 2006 
Bajra, gram, jawar and paddy in consonance with revenue record produced by the assessee.
In Appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short 'the CIT (A)') set aside the additions relying upon corrected khasra girdwari produced before him. Correction having taken place before the assessment but were never produced during the course of assessment.
Other evidence on record was also misread. Further appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue was accepted on a consideration of the evidence on record in its right perspective.
The corrections in khasra girdwari for the year 1996 were made immediately on an application moved by the assessee on 1.3.2000 without any inquiry. The order of the Assistant Collector, Jind though was passed on 16.3.2000 but was not produced before the Assessing Officer, who passed the assessment order on 27.3.2000. Even the plea regarding existence of M/s Gopi Flour Mills to whom wheat was claimed to have been sold was found false as no such firm existed at the given address. No claim was made, from the alleged sale proceeds, on account of expenditure incurred on seeds, labour and transportation etc. In totality the evidence furnished by the assessee to support her claim for agricultural income did not inspire confidence.
We have perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the gist of which has been referred to above.
Learned counsel for the assessee submits that non-deduction of expenses from the income could be a ground for making a deduction of expenses and recomputation of income but could not be a ground for rejecting the claim of the assessee regarding agricultural income.
We are unable to accept this submission. Once the assessee was found to be putting forward her claim which was found to be not genuine, there is no reason why the claim of the assessee should not be rejected. It is a case where the genuine claim in terms of entries in the revenue record was estimated and relief to that extent was granted. The excessive claim made by the assessee was rejected. The view taken by the Tribunal thus cannot be faulted with.
Learned counsel for the assessee also referred to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in C.I.T. vs. Orissa Corporation Private Limited  159 ITR 78, in support of his submissions that burden of proof was on the revenue once the assessee had produced revenue record. The inherent improbability of claim of the assessee could be I.T.A. NO. 136 OF 2006 
sufficient ground to reject her claim, even if any affidavit to the contrary has been filed for discharging the burden. The judgment relied upon is, thus, distinguishable.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
August 1, 2006 (RAJESH BINDAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.