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 ......Appellant Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'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 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 13.6.2008 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 or not as the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence produced by the appellant to show that the appellant had 20 acres of land and he cultivated Safeda trees on the land which were sold by him and the agriculture income 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 and conjectures? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) that the assessee has not been able to establish and prove that the assessee has actually sold Safeda trees worth Rs.5.00 lacs in the year under consideration especially when the assessee is having more than 12 acres land on which no crop cultivated except cultivation of Safeda trees, produced photographs of Safeda trees, produced some of the prominent villagers namely Sh.Jasi Ram, Sh.Balak Ram and others who had categorically stated that they knew Mahipal Singh from childhood and he had sold some 3-4 years back Safeda trees and even ignored the inquiries report made by the Income-Tax Department as well as report of the Patwari (Govt.Agency) which confirmed the assessee's submission?” 2. The assessee claimed agriculture income from sale of Safeda trees and produced documentary evidence in respect thereof. The Assessing Officer did not believe the evidence of the assessee for various reasons mentioned in para No.4 of the impugned order. This view was affirmed by the CIT(A). The bills relied upon by the assessee were held to be not genuine for the reasons reproduced in para No.7 of the impugned I.T.A.No. 989 of 2008 [3] judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has upheld the findings of the Assessing 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 are perverse so as to call for interference. The questions proposed cannot be held to be substantial questions of law. 4. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 22, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No