2023 (3) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... tax inspector etc), brought on record by the AO all of which clearly established that no agricultural activity had been carried out on the land in question and consequently assessee's claim of deduction u/s 54B was not allowable since the basic requirements for allowing the deduction were not satisfied. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving due importance to assessee's statement recorded on oath and assessee's own admission during the course of assessment proceedings regarding the falsity of his claim and offering the LTCG for taxation. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to treat assessee's income (of Rs. 69,344/-) as agricultural income despite there being no supporting evidence for the same and despite it being proved by the AO that no agricultural activity has been carried out by the assessee in the said period. 5. For these and such other reasons as may be urged at the time of the appeal." 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :- The respondent-assessee is an individual deriving income fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the Assessing Officer had called for the photocopies of 7/12 extract from the office of Talathi, which according to the Assessing Officer, had shown the land was under 'gawatpad' (weedy fallow land) or the 'pad' (fallow land), whereas, the 7/12 extracts submitted by the respondent-assessee had mentioned that the lands were 'gawatpad' (weedy fallow), ghewada (green beans), watana (peas), bhuimug (groundnut). The Assessing Officer also issued summons to the Talathi, Shri Maruti Sadu Gosawale, who was Talathi on 22.06.2011 and recorded statement on 11.03.2016, wherein, he had stated that the 7/12 extracts submitted by the respondent-assessee were not issued by him. His statement recorded was extracted at page no.7 of the assessment order. Even the Talathi holding office as on 14.03.2016 was also examined, wherein, he had stated that 7/12 extracts submitted by the respondent-assessee were not issued by him. During the course of assessment proceedings, the respondent-assessee vide letter dated 11.03.2016 addressed to the Assessing Officer had agreed to offer the tax to long term capital gains of Rs.24,71,17,100/- arisen on sale of said land. The Assessing Officer also used Google Sate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... land in past years prior to the date of sale. (ii) no agricultural income had been offered / shown by the appellant in the past years' returns of income filed and the same had only been declared of Rs. 69,344/- in this relevant AY 2013-14. (iii) the revenue records including 7/12 extracts did not mention the agricultural activities and crops grown. (iv) the 7/12 extracts which had been furnished by the appellant during assessment proceedings before the AO were fabricated and forged as the AO had issued summons u/s. 131 to the then Talathi whose signature was found in 7/12 extracts and he denied in his statement that he had put any signature on such 7/12 extracts and therefore mentioning in the 7/12 extracts of crops grown such as Jowar, Bajara etc. were also false. The enquiry conducted by the AO from the Talathi who was holding office during the course of assessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s. 133(6) revealed that no such 7/12 extracts had been issued from the Talathi's office, as outward register did not mention any such outward entry in the name of the assessee for issuing such 7/12 extracts. (v) the statement u/s. 131 recorded of Shri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siemens Engg. vs. UOI, AIR 1976 SC 1785 held that the rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice, which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Walchand and Co. P. Ltd. (1967) 65 ITR 381 (SC) held that the practice of recording a decision without reasons in support cannot, but be deprecated. 11. In S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India [(1990) 4 SCC 594], the Supreme Court held that irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review, the recording of reasons by an administrative authority by itself serves a statutory purpose viz., it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. 12. In M/s Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union and others [AIR 1973 SC 2758], the Supreme Court while deciding an award under Section 11 of the Indus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a va....