PRALHADGOUDA K.PATIL,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, GADAG

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3205/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 January 2019AY 2014-154 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that disallowing agricultural expenses cannot be treated as income from other sources. Such disallowance should only reduce the declared agricultural income.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared agricultural income of Rs. 21 lakhs. The AO added Rs. 2,50,000 as income from other sources due to lack of evidence for agricultural expenses. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of agricultural expenses can be treated as income from other sources, or if it should only reduce the declared agricultural income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘C’ SMC

Before: SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN

For Appellant: Ms. Mrinalini R, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Karuppaswamy S.R, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 17.12.2018Pronounced: 11.01.2019

PER SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT :

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 28/9/2018 of CIT(A), Huballi relating to asst. year 2015-16.

2.

The assessee is an individual and he filed return of income for asst. year 2015-16 declaring income from business of dealing in cement and agricultural income. The agricultural income declared by the assessee was sum of Rs.21 lakhs. The gross agricultural income earned by the assessee was 22,00,810/-. Considering the gross agricultural income, the AO wanted the details of agricultural expenses and evidence in support of agricultural expenses. Since the same was not filed, the AO added Rs.2,50,000/- as income from other sources. It appears that the assessee’s representative also accepted the addition before the AO. Nevertheless, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the aforesaid addition and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non prosecution as none appeared on the various dates of hearing before the CIT(A).

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions. From a perusal of order of assessment, it is clear that the AO has accepted agricultural income declared by the assessee. The details of expenses incurred in carrying out agricultural activities was disbelieved to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. In such circumstances, the AO cannot treat the expenses which were not substantiated by the assessee as income from other sources. Such an addition if at all can be made only u/s 69 or 69C of the Act. Unless Agricultural income declared by an Assessee is explained as source for any investment or otherwise, when agricultural income is not believed to have been earned by the Assessee, no addition under deeming provisions of the Act can be made. In the present case, the Assessee has not sought to explain Agricultural income as source for any investment or otherwise. Since agricultural income was outside the purview of taxation under Chapter III of the Act, the absence of evidence regarding expenditure can only lead to conclusion that the agricultural income declared by the assessee at Rs.21 lakhs should be decreased to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/-. It cannot be by any stretch of imagination be treated as income from other sources. The addition made is without any basis and, therefore the same deserves to be deleted and is hereby deleted.

5.

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th January, 2019.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →