KUSUM SHARMA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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:

(2.) 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 Bajra, gram, jawar and paddy in consonance with revenue record produced by the assessee.

(3.) 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.