KEMPAIAH SHANKAR,OOTY vs. ITO WARD-1, OOTY

These two appeals by the assessee are arising out of different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Coimbatore in Appeal No. CIT(A),Coimbatore-3/10662/2016-17 & CIT(A),Coimbatore-3/10276/2017-18 dated 13.02.2020 and 14.02.2020 for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. The assessments were framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ootacamund for the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16 u/s. 143(3)

The only common issue in both the appeals of assessee is as regards to estimation of agricultural income and that is for assessment years 2014-15, the CIT(A) estimated agricultural income at Rs.21,42,270/- against the total agricultural income declared by assessee at Rs.30.50 lakhs and for assessment year 2015-16, the CIT(A) estimated agricultural income at Rs.10,72,500/- as against the total agricultural income declared by assessee at Rs.21,45,000/-. For this, assessee has raised identical grounds in both the appeals, which need not be reproduced.

Brief facts are that the assessee has declared a large agricultural income and accordingly the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act in both the assessment years. The assessee was required to file details of agricultural income i.e., agricultural land holding along with Chitta cum Patta, Adangal and evidence of sale of agricultural produce. The assessee could not produce any of the evidences regarding agricultural land holding or agricultural produce sold or grown. Accordingly, the AO assessed the entire agricultural income declared for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.30,50,000/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at & 520/Chny/2020 3 Rs.21,45,000/- as unexplained income and added the same u/s.69A of the Act.

In both the years assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the orders of AO making assessment. The assessee before CIT(A) stated that the agricultural produce sold to the local buyers in the market of Mettupalayam, which is located 60 kms away from Ootacamund. According to assessee, since the goods are perishable in nature, the agriculturists try to sell the goods as early as possible to get better rates. It was informed that pattials are obtained to know the value, number of bags and rate per bag and as per pattials, the income was declared. The assessee produced photocopy of pattials pertaining to financial year 2014-15 and 2015-16. The CIT(A) after going through the pattials estimated the agricultural income and restricted the agricultural income at 50% in assessment year 2015-16 and in assessment year 2014-15 he restricted at Rs.21,42,270/- as against agricultural income declared by assessee at Rs.30.50 lakhs. The assessee also produced certain evidence in the form of expenses incurred for pest control or pesticides used for agricultural operations. Aggrieved against the assessment of income by CIT(A), the assessee came in appeal before us.

We have heard ld. Senior DR, as none is present from the assessee’s side despite service of notice. We noted that the CIT(A) & 520/Chny/2020 4 based on some evidences like pattials and expenses relatable to agricultural produce or agricultural operations estimated the agricultural income. It is not denied that there is no agricultural income but we feel that estimate should be made at a reasonable basis and according to us, in assessment year 2014-15 out of the agricultural income of Rs.30.50 lakhs declared by the assessee, a sum of Rs.20 lakhs can be estimated as agricultural income and the balance Rs.10.50 lakhs can be held as ‘income from other sources’ and assessed u/s.69A of the Act. As regards to assessment year 2015-16, agricultural income declared is to the tune of Rs.21.45 lakhs, we estimate the agricultural income at Rs.15 lakhs and balance Rs.6.45 lakhs may be treated as income from other sources. We direct the AO accordingly.

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