2018 (11) TMI 1181 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal allowed, order quashed, remand for reconsideration. Agriculture income treatment unjustified. Section 153-A order set aside.

Naresh Chauhan Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, HSIDC Bhawan, Udyog Vihar Gurgaon.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Court found the treatment of agriculture ... Treating of agriculture income as undisclosed source - Held that:- There is perversity in the impugned order inasmuch as contentions raised by the appellant, furnishing explanation, perhaps plausible with regard to increase in the amount of agricultural income in the relevant year i.e. assessment year 2008-2009 stands not considered by the authority below. Agricultural income alleged to have been generated from agricultural produce was through a proper banking channel, from the persons whose particulars stood disclosed. Even in the previous and succeeding years similar income was there from such source. From the bare reading of the order (s), it cannot be said that all this stands considered and as such, on this short ground alone, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 8.1.2015, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Division Bench, Chandigarh, for consideration of the matter afresh. Issues:1. Treatment of agriculture income as undisclosed source.2. Validity of the order under Section 153-A.3. Penalization for rectifying error and enhancing agriculture income under Section 153-A.Analysis:Issue 1: Treatment of agriculture income as undisclosed sourceThe appellant raised concerns regarding the treatment of agriculture income as an undisclosed source by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant argued that the claim regarding the agriculture income was not disproved, and similar income had been accepted in previous and subsequent assessment years. The High Court found that the authorities below had not adequately considered the explanations provided by the appellant. The agricultural income in question was generated through a proper banking channel, with disclosed particulars of the individuals involved. The Court noted that the contentions raised by the appellant were plausible, and as such, the impugned order was deemed perverse. Consequently, the Court quashed the order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration.Issue 2: Validity of the order under Section 153-AThe appellant contended that the order under Section 153-A was flawed as it lacked incremental material supporting the addition made. The High Court observed that the assessment under Section 153-A required a proper basis for any additional findings. The Court found merit in the appellant's argument and set aside the impugned order, directing a reconsideration of the matter by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.Issue 3: Penalization for rectifying error and enhancing agriculture income under Section 153-AThe appellant was penalized for rectifying an error and enhancing the agriculture income under Section 153-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court acknowledged the appellant's efforts to rectify the error and enhance the declared income. The Court deemed the penalization unjust in this context and ordered a fresh consideration of the matter by the Tribunal.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a thorough assessment of the facts and explanations provided by the appellant.