BALBHADRASINGH DILIPSINGH JADEJA,BHAVNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

In this appeal, the grounds raised by the assessee are as under :

The assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.51,18,760/- on 28.09.2013. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 03.09.2014. In response to the notices, the Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and submitted the details. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee introduced fresh capital in cash during the year under consideration for which the assessee claimed that an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was introduced on account of agricultural proceeds and balance Rs.10,00,000/- was detailed in personal account along with ledger account copy. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not furnished any receipt/proof relating to agricultural income or about the expenses incurred for agricultural income. The Assessing Officer further observed that the balance of Rs.10,00,000/- was also not as per details which were produced before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.22,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of fresh capital introduced. The Assessing Officer further made addition on rental income amounting to Rs.30,000/-

Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has given details before the CIT(A) which was totally ignored by the CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) never asked the assessee to file the evidences relating to agricultural income. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee explained the Assessing Officer that the introduction of capital was sourced out of its own funds which was also Page 3 of 4 accumulated through agricultural income. The Ld. A.R. submitted that as the agricultural income is exempt from tax, the same was not reflected by the assessee in its statement of total income inadvertently. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that so far as receipts of proceeds on account of agricultural activities are concerned, the assessee prayed before the CIT(A) that the same will be submitted during the remand proceedings as and when required. As regards rental income, the assessee has not pressed ground no.2.

The Ld. D.R. relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has not filed any details regarding the agricultural income and the expenses incurred which is an admitted position as the assessee made submission before the CIT(A) while filing additional evidence that the details relating to agricultural income will be filed when asked by the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings. Besides this, the assesse made a plea that inadvertently the agricultural income was not reflected in the details of the return of income. But at no point of time, the assesse with any documents before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A) or before us has shown that the assesse was actually having agricultural income. This shows that the assessee was not having the genuine agricultural income. Mere oral submissions or indication that evidences will be provided if revenue asked at later stage shows that the assesse was not at all dispensed the burden of proving his claim that the said income and expenses were part of agricultural income. As regards the explanation for the personal account and its maintenance, the Ld. A.R. has not set out any case as to why said practice was followed by the assessee. The assesse was not at all maintaining proper books of accounts. Thus, ground no.1 is dismissed.

Ground no.2 is dismissed as not pressed.

As regards ground no.3, the lower authorities have followed principles of natural justice and hence ground no.3 is dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.