K.U.PA .KRISHAN(HUF),TRICHY, CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), , CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA.G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate, but identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, all dated 17.02.2023, and pertains to assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-02. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are being heard together and disposed off, by this consolidated order. -559/Chny/2023 :: 2 ::

3. The appellant submits that he has offered agricultural income of Rs.2,50,000/- and submitted additional evidence by way of adangal and VAO certificates in support of the earning of agricultural income which was directed to be considered by the assessing officer by the Hon'ble High Court but the assessing officer failed to do so even while giving effect to the order of the ITAT.

4. The authorities below erred in disallowing the agricultural income shown by the appellant especially when the appellant owns agricultural lands and income there from was derived.

6. The Assessing officer is not justified in following the original assessment order for disallowing the agricultural income especially when the original assessment was set aside by the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the original assessment order was passed without considering the additional evidence submitted in the appeal proceedings which were admitted by the Hon'ble High Court and directed the assessing officer to consider in the fresh assessment order to be passed.

7. The appellant therefore prays that the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- made under other sources by the assessing officer may be deleted and the same may be considered as agricultural income and justice rendered.

a search u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act") was conducted and subsequently, an order u/s.158BC r.w.s.143(3) r.w.s.254 r.w.s.260A of the Act, was passed on 28.03.2013. The assessment for the impugned assessment years have been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act, by making addition towards disallowance of claim of agricultural income.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the ITAT, Chennai Benches vide its order in dated 09.05.2012, has set aside the assessment to the AO for fresh consideration.

In pursuant to directions of the Tribunal, the AO called upon the assessee to file necessary evidences in support of claim of agricultural income.

Since, the assessee could not file any evidences, the AO made addition towards disallowance of agricultural income and added to total income. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the First Appellate Authority, but neither appeared before the CIT(A) nor filed any details, which is evident from Para No.6.3 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A), where the Ld.CIT(A) gave ‘nine’ dates of hearing, but no response was received from the assessee. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the additions made towards disallowance of agricultural income. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before me.

carried out during relevant assessment years. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submits that the assessee is having 12.40 acres of agricultural land at three villages and also carried out various agricultural operations, including cultivation of banana, etc. If you consider the extent of land held by the assessee and nature of crop grown during relevant assessment year, agricultural income declared by the assessee is commensurate with land held by the assessee, and thus, the AO ought to have accepted the claim of the assessee. Therefore, he submits that the additions made by the AO towards agricultural income should be deleted.

5. The Ld.DR, present for the Revenue, supporting the orders of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A), submitted that except land holding details, assessee could not file any evidences as to what kind of agricultural operations were carried out during relevant assessment year. Further, the assessee could not furnish any evidences, including sales bills for agricultural products. In absence of any evidences, the AO has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee and their orders should be upheld

land at three villages and also carried out various agricultural operations, including cultivation of banana and to this effect, the assessee has furnished a certificate from VAO, where the authorities have certified that the assessee has carried out agricultural operations and also estimated income from agricultural activities at Rs.2 lakhs per annum. The AO neither consider extent of land held by the assessee nor certification of the VAO who is competent authority to certify the agricultural activities carried out by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) are erred in not appreciating the fact while disallowing the claim of agricultural income. At the same time, the assessee also could not file credible evidence to justify the claim of agricultural income. Even if you go by the claim of the assessee, income declared under agricultural operations is not commensurate with extent of land held by the assessee and agricultural operations carried out during relevant assessment year.

Therefore, we are of the considered view that both the parties failed to make out their case with necessary evidences and reasons. Under these facts and circumstances, the only option left with us is to settle the dispute between the assessee and the AO by estimating income from agricultural operations. Therefore, considering the extent of land held by the assessee and also certificate issued by the VAO, we direct the AO to allow 50% of agricultural income claimed by the assessee for three assessment years. In other words, the assessee get partial relief of 50% of agricultural income -559/Chny/2023 disallowed by the AO and balance 50% is hereby confirmed for three assessment years.