Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return claiming exemption for agricultural income. The Assessing Officer disallowed this exemption, treating it as income from other sources, and this was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed this decision.
Held
The Tribunal held that the evidence produced, including the title deed, Tehsildar's certificate, and Jamabadi, clearly showed the assessee was the owner of the agricultural land and cultivated it. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the exemption claimed on agricultural income is to be allowed when the assessee has provided sufficient evidence of ownership and cultivation of the land.
Sections Cited
10(1), 69A, 143(2), 142(1), 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 27.08.2024 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y. 2018-19.
Grounds of appeal are as under: -
1. 1002-Chd-2024 Gurkartar Singh, Nabha 2 1. That the order passed by the ITO, National E-assessment Centre and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi is illegal, unjust and uncalled for.
2. That the claim of exemption withdrawn on account of agriculture income u/s 10(1) and added back to return income u/s 69A worth Rs. 32,07,300/- and confirmed by the CIT, National Faceless Appeal Centre is illegal, unjust and uncalled for.
3. That the withdrawal of exemption claimed u/s 10(1) on account of agricultural income by the Income Tax Officer, National E- assessment Centre and added back in the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act,. 1961 and confirmed by CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, without considering and going through the evidences field with regard to agriculture land holding like Jamabandi, Girdawari and certificate obtained from Tehsildar is illegal, unjust and against the actual facts of the case on the file.
4. That the addition made by the ITO, National E-assessment centre and confirmed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi is illegal, unjust and uncalled for.
That the appellant may further craves to leave, to add or to add or to amend the grounds of appeal.
6. That the appeal filed is within limitation
1002-Chd-2024 Gurkartar Singh, Nabha 3
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income on 30.08.2018 admitting total income at Rs.1,93,760/- and claimed exemption on account of Agricultural income of Rs.32,07,300/-. The case was selected under limited scrutiny to verify the agricultural income, accordingly, notices u/s. 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) and u/s. 142(1) were issued to the assessee. As the assessee failed to prove the ownership of the agricultural land, the Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption on account of Agriculture Income u/s. 10(1) of Rs.32,07,300/- and treated the same as Income from other sources.
During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that despite the fact that all the relevant papers concerning title deed with regard to the transfer of agricultural land by the father in the name of son - the appellant, and certificate obtained from Tehsildar Nabha confirming the land holding of the agricultural land measuring 53 Kanal 18Marla alongwith Girdawari confirming the fact that the applicant is an agriculturist and the agricultural land
1002-Chd-2024 Gurkartar Singh, Nabha 4 is under the cultivation of the appellant. The Assessing Officer made the addition and Ld. CIT(A) confirmed that addition without going into the details or without rebutting the details filed by the Assessee. The ld. AO has made the addition on the ground giving his findings that the land from which agriculture income has been shown was not in the name of the Assessee. Therefore, he has denied the agricultural income earned by the Assessee and made addition and taxed it under the Special provision of section 115BBE of the Act, the same has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). During the proceedings before us, the Counsel of the Assessee, produced all the same papers and brought it on record that the land was transferred by the father of the Assessee to the Assessee vide title deed/ vasika No. 2516 dated 8.1.2016 with regard to transfer of agricultural land by the father in the name of his son - the Assessee. The Assessee has also produced a certificate obtained form the Tehsildar Nabha confirming the land holding of agricultural land measiring19 Kanals 18 Marla and further Girdawrai confirming the fact that the Assessee is an agriculturist and the land mentioned above is under the cultivation by the appellant. In addition of these documents,
1002-Chd-2024 Gurkartar Singh, Nabha 5 the Assessee also filed ‘Jamabadi” for the leproid 2013-14 which was in the name of Tarsem Singh, the father of the Assessee who finally transferred the land in the name of Gurtarkar Singh, the Assessee on 8.1.2016. It was also submitted that the Mutation was also done by the Revenue officer on 4.4.2016 in the name of the Assessee and the same is reflected in the collum of owner in the ‘Jamabadi’.
5. We have considered the finding given by the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). We have also considered the evidences brought on record by the Counsel of the Assessee during the proceeding before us and we find that the papers produced clearly show that the Assessee became the owner of the land on the basis of Title Deed No. 2516 dated 8.1.2016 (transfer of the agricultural land by the father of the Assessee to the Assessee - in Assessee’s name). Since the transfer was made in the FY 2015-16 and the present case is relating to 2018-19, therefore, there is no reason to reject the claim of the Assessee in the relevant A.Y., as the Assessee not be the owner of the land. As all the relevant papers have been brought on record which show that the Assessee was the real owner of the agricultural land and which as per the report of 1002-Chd-2024 Gurkartar Singh, Nabha 6 the Patwari, the land cultivated by the Assessee for earning agricultural income, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 32,07,300/- cannot be sustained and further taxing this amount u/s 115BBE of the Act is also not acceptable. Accordingly, Assessee’s appeal on both these grounds are allowed.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced on 28.05.2025.