JAMES JOSEPH PALACKAN,PALACKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2, KOTTAYAM

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of executing civil contracts. The return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed on 17.09.2015 declaring income of Rs. 2,97,440/- and also agricultural income of Rs. 34,00,000/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kottayam (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 18.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income James Joseph Palackan Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 36,97,440/-. While doing so, the AO disbelieved the agricultural income of Rs. 34,00,000/- shown by the appellant for the failure of the appellant to substantiate the agricultural income by filing requisite evidences.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the appellant had failed to substantiate deriving of agricultural income and also failed to furnish information as sought for by the AO.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the learned lower authorities dismissed the claim of the appellant without giving proper opportunity of being heard. Further, it is submitted that the AO had not disputed the fact that the appellant owns agricultural land of 37 acres while disbelieving the total agricultural income.

On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR, supporting the order of the CIT(A), submits that the order passed by the CIT(A) is very reasoned one, requires no interference.

I heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue that arises for my consideration is whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. James Joseph Palackan 34,00,000/- disbelieving the agricultural income. On mere perusal of the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A), it would reveal that the learned lower authorities had not disputed the fact that the appellant holds agricultural and to the extent of 37 acres in the area called Bodinahkanur in Tamil Nadu. Even admitting for a moment that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus of proving earning agricultural income with bills, vouchers, etc. the AO, based on the local enquiries made by him, ought to have estimated the agricultural income. But the AO failed to do so. Therefore, I remand the matter back to the file of the AO to estimate the income based on the evidence gathered by him by conducting local enquiries in the locality where the agricultural land is situated. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the file of the AO for de novo disposal on the lines indicated above.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.