No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
ORDER
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur dated 05.09.2019 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
The effective ground raised
by the assessee is as under :- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding addition of Rs.1,99,000/- of agricultural income u/s 68 of the Act. He failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances in its proper perspective.”
3. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of industrial rubber parts. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.5,50,420/-. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee claimed an agricultural income of Rs.1.99 lakhs in the return of income. Against the same, the assessee claimed expenditure of only Rs.17,899/-. The ratio works out to 9% of the agricultural income. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disbelieved the claim of the assessee and treated the entire agricultural receipts as ‘income from undisclosed sources’ u/s 68 of the Act. Otherwise, the assessee furnished the 7/12 extracts reflecting the facts relating to the existing thick bamboo trees and growth of cashew nut trees. The assessee also furnished the evidence regarding the sale of bamboo and cashew. However, considering the self-vouchers and unverifiable of the claims of the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the entire claim as agricultural income and taxed on the same u/s 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the same.
4. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee filed various details in support of the existing of land, growth of crops, trees, sale of produce, etc. There is certificate of the agricultural production from Panchayat Committees. The assessee also furnished the invoices raised on sale of agricultural produce. The relevant accounting statements showing the agricultural produce were also furnished. The ld. Counsel submitted that the claim of the assessee cannot be rejected when there is ample evidence about the existing of land, growth of crops/trees.