Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee declared agricultural income of ₹11 lakhs, but failed to provide documentary evidence during assessment and appellate proceedings. The AO reclassified this income as non-agricultural income, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to provide evidence earlier, granting one more opportunity in the interest of justice would be appropriate. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to submit evidence to substantiate agricultural income, after failing to do so during assessment and initial appeal.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Mumbai dated 28/11/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070705650(1) for the assessment year 2017- 18.
The only effective ground raised by the assessee is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ₹11,00,000 by reclassifying the declared agricultural income as non-agricultural income.
The AO, during the assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee had shown agricultural income of ₹11 lakhs. However, no documentary evidence was submitted to substantiate that this income indeed arose from agricultural operations. In the absence of relevant evidence, the AO treated the said amount as income from other sources. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that submission of landholding details alone does not establish that agricultural operations were carried out or that agricultural income was earned. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had failed to produce details regarding the crops cultivated, sale invoices, confirmations from purchasers, or records of agricultural expenses. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO.
3.1 Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us.
Before us, the learned AR submitted a chart (placed at page 55 of the appeal set) which includes details of the crops cultivated, yield, sale value, and associated expenses. The ld. AR contended that the assessee was engaged in genuine agricultural activity, and due to certain constraints, could not furnish the supporting evidence during the earlier proceedings. The ld. AR prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the AO so that the assessee may be given an opportunity to furnish complete supporting evidence to substantiate the claim.
The learned DR, on the other hand, did not object to the request for remand and fairly left the issue to the discretion of the Bench.
We have heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessee has not filed the relevant during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings. However, now the assessee undertakes the responsibility to file the necessary requisites details. Thus, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to substantiate his claim of agricultural income.
6.1 Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence to be submitted by the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and file all necessary supporting documents such as land records, crop yield details, sale bills, confirmations from buyers, and expense statements. Hence, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 28th day of May, 2025