NANDINI SINGLA,ROHTAK vs. ITO, WARD- 3, ROHTAK

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income declaring income of Rs 2,04,800/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny because of the 2 ITA.No.3821/Del./2018 Smt. Nandini Singla, Rohtak, Haryana. agricultural income. The assessee produced books of account which were test-checked. During the appellate proceedings the matter was referred to the AO to verify the correctness of sale of agricultural produce and other source of agricultural proceeds as shown by the assessee. Due opportunity was given to the assessee by confronting with the report of AO. This issue relates to addition of Rs.16,88,000/- treating the agricultural income declared by the assessee as income from other sources. While assessing the income of the assessee, AO accepted agricultural income to the extent of Rs.4,80,000/- only and added the rest of amount of Rs.16,88,000/- to the income of the assessee. The assessee submitted copy of agreement and copy of Jamabandi and Fard Girdavri from Shri Balwan Singh, Shri Surat Singh and Shri Bheem Singh, from whom assessee received the agricultural land for batai. The statement of Shri Suresh was recorded on behalf of these persons. The assessee also filed copy of agreement with M/s Satyam Organic Farming P. Ltd. to whom land was given to use. The A.O, however, accepted income of only Rs.20,000/-

The A.O. submitted remand report dated 16.10.2017 in which it was informed that assessee did not produce the above three persons for verification of the agreement in question inspite of giving due opportunities. Therefore, the sale of agricultural produce and other receipts remain unverified. The assessee has been given sufficient opportunities during remand proceedings, but, she has not submitted any documentary evidences regarding her claim of lease money paid to Shri Balwan Singh, Landlord, during the year. AO also explained that Shri Suresh Kumar is the elder son of Shri Balwan Singh who looks after all the family affairs and was produced by husband of the assessee. Therefore, a statement was recorded only to test check the facts relating to agricultural land taken on lease by the assessee at assessee’s

The Ld. CIT(A) considering the material on record noted that inspite of giving due opportunities to the assessee for producing the above three persons from whom agriculture land was taken on lease for examination and even she did not file any documentary evidences relating to the earning of agricultural income. Therefore, due to the non co-operative attitude of the assessee, the A.O. could not verified the facts and the claim of the assessee remains unverified and unsubstantiated. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that statement of Shri Suresh Kumar was recorded only to test-check prevailing acts relating to the agriculture land taken on lease who was produced by the husband of the assessee. The assessee failed

Assessee has been notified the date of hearing through Registered post. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the findings of the authorities below. The Ld. D.R. contended that assessee did not produce the Landlord for verification of the facts as well as did not produce documentary evidences to prove earning of agricultural income. In the absence of any evidence on record and the fact that assessee did not avail any opportunity at the remand proceedings at the appellate stage would clearly disentitle the assessee to claim benefit of agricultural income. Considering the above facts and in the 6 ITA.No.3821/Del./2018 Smt. Nandini Singla, Rohtak, Haryana. absence of any representation and any evidence on record, no interference is called for in the matter. I confirm the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of assessee.

In the result, appeal of Assessee is dismissed.