M.p.singh v. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A.No. 989 of 2008 (O &M)Date of decision: 22.7.2009 M.P.Singh Vs. ......Appellant The Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad ...Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT:Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the appellant.Mr.Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the respondent.**** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1.The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated13.6.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'A'New Delhi in ITA No. 1419/DEL/04 for the assessment year 2000-2001,proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law: 1. “ Whether the order passed by the ITAT is perverse ornot as the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidenceproduced by the appellant to show that the appellanthad 20 acres of land and he cultivated Safeda trees onthe land which were sold by him and the agricultureincome of Rs.5.00 lacs was shown?not as the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidenceproduced by the appellant to show that the appellanthad 20 acres of land and he cultivated Safeda trees onthe land which were sold by him and the agricultureincome of Rs.5.00 lacs was shown? 2. Whether the order passed by the ITAT is sustainable in I.T.A.No. 989 of 2008 [2] view of the fact that the same is based on surmises andconjectures? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in law in upholding theorder of the CIT(A) that the assessee has not been ableto establish and prove that the assessee has actuallysold Safeda trees worth Rs.5.00 lacs in the year underconsideration especially when the assessee is havingmore than 12 acres land on which no crop cultivatedexcept cultivation of Safeda trees, producedphotographs of Safeda trees, produced some of theprominent villagers namely Sh.Jasi Ram, Sh.BalakRam and others who had categorically stated that theyknew Mahipal Singh from childhood and he had soldsome 3-4 years back Safeda trees and even ignored theinquiries report made by the Income-Tax Departmentas well as report of the Patwari (Govt.Agency) whichconfirmed the assessee's submission?” 2.The assessee claimed agriculture income from sale of Safedatrees and produced documentary evidence in respect thereof. TheAssessing Officer did not believe the evidence of the assessee for variousreasons mentioned in para No.4 of the impugned order. This view wasaffirmed by the CIT(A). The bills relied upon by the assessee were held tobe not genuine for the reasons reproduced in para No.7 of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has upheld the findings of theAssessing Officer and CIT(A) for detailed reasons given in para Nos. 13,14 and 16 of the judgment. 3.After perusal of the orders of the Assessing Officer,the CIT(A)and the Tribunal, we are unable to hold that the concurrent findings areperverse so as to call for interference. The questions proposed cannot beheld to be substantial questions of law. 4.The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY)July 22, 2009 JUDGEraghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No