PRIYA SINGH,RANCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, RANCHI, RANCHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 60/RAN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 April 2023AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee owned agricultural land with mango trees and had provided tenant farmers' details. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to delete the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared agricultural income but did not show expenses. The AO reopened the case and added Rs. 5,00,000/- as rental income from agricultural land given on 'adhbatai'. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating conditions for agricultural income were not met.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of rental income from agricultural land was justified when the assessee provided details of ownership and tenant farmers.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH: RANCHI

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

2 & 61/Ran/2021 AY: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Priya Singh 2. The assessee has assailed the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the ground of sustaining addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- as made by the AO on account of rental income from agricultural land.

3.

Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 22.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 1,68,000/-. The AO noticed that the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 5,00,000/- during the year but expenses relating to agricultural operations have not been shown. Accordingly the case was reopened u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has agricultural land which was given on adhbatai which means that the owner of the land will get half of the share of agricultural income whereas all the expenses are normally borne by the farmers. The assesse furnished Aadhar card and PAN card of the tenant farmers before the AO. The AO issued show cause notice to the assesse to file all documentary evidences which could be furnished by the assesse and consequently the AO added the same to the income of the assesse.

4.

The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the conditions of income being agricultural income from land were not satisfied such as details of income, proof of ownership and land being agricultural in nature were not furnished.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we observe that the assessee is undisputedly the owner of agricultural land on which there are mango trees and is almost 25 years. The assessee has furnished certificate from Gram Panchayet, Rampur to this effect which is extracted below:

Therefore ,it is clear from the above there is no dispute as to the ownership of agricultural land which has fully grown and developed tree of mangoes. It was also undisputed that the assessee has furnished Aadhar card and PAN card of thouse farmers who have taken charge of doing agricultural operations or from whom the assesse received income. The authorities below instead of examining these persons simply stated that the claim of the assessee is not as per the provisions of Act. We have examined the certificate produced by the assesse and are of the opinion that the mango orchards is capable of yielding income. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. The appeal of the assesse is allowed.

6.

The issue raised in A.Y. 2016-17 is similar to one as decided by us in . Accordingly our decisions in ITA No. 60/Ran/2021 would ,mutatis mutandis, apply to this appeal as well. Consequently the appeal of the assesse is also allowed.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 5th April, 2023

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →