Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee declared agriculture income of Rs.33,58,954. The AO made an addition of the entire amount as unaccounted income for lack of details. The CIT(A) estimated the income at Rs.4,68,564 and confirmed an addition of Rs.28,90,390.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed to have submitted evidence, including sales bills and documentation for other crops, which were allegedly not considered. Given the conflicting submissions and the need for proper verification, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of agriculture income is justified without proper verification of the evidence submitted by the assessee?
Sections Cited
143(3), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-20 [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 27.09.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [A.O] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 31.12.2019.
The only effective ground of appeal in this appeal of assessee is against in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.28,90,390/- u/s. 68 of the Act pertaining to agriculture income.
1. 3. The assessee has filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,55,650/- and also declared agriculture income of Rs.33,58,954/- in the return of income. The A.O has made the addition of agriculture income of Rs.33,58,954/- as unaccounted income of the assessee as the assessee has not been able to provide the details of the agriculture income. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) examined the land holding of the assessee and submission made in support of agriculture income and estimated the yield of coconut tree grown and arrived at agriculture income of Rs. 4,68,564/-. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs. 28,90,390/- out of Rs. 33,58,954/- made by the assessee.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the assessee owns 26 acres of land and the agriculture income shown has been duly accounted in the books of account. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has shown agriculture income of Rs. 49,95,724/- in A.Y 2014-15, Rs. 54,65,200/- in A.Y 2015-16 and Rs. 49,00,000/- in AY 2016-17, which has been accepted by the Department. The Ld. AR therefore contended that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to estimate the income when the income was properly recorded in the books of account.
On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has furnished only ledger extracts of entries, and failed to provide supporting evidence such as sales bills or invoices to prove that the income was from agricultural produce. Additionally, the assessee did not submit evidence of having grown other crops, nor any documentation showing the names of purchasers or proof of sale of produce and all sales recorded in boos are in cash. However, before us, the Ld. AR submitted that all relevant evidence, including sales bills/invoices and documentation showing that other crops were grown on 6.77 acres of land are available. The Ld. AR has also submitted that similar agriculture income offered has been accepted by department in preceding years. In light of this, we are of the view that the matter requires re-examination. Therefore, we remit the issue back to the file of the A.O. to determine the agriculture income afresh after providing proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings and appear before the A.O. on the scheduled hearing date without fail. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
Order pronounced on 23rd May, 2025.