MR. M S UMESH, PROP: SRI SAVITHRI SHANKAR TRANSPORTS,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1) PRESENT WARD-6(4)(4), BANGALORE

ITA 1461/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 February 2018AY 2012-133 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) after carefully examining it. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural income, but the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed a portion of it, treating it as 'Income from Other Sources'. The assessee provided Record of Rights (RTC) as evidence, which mentioned earlier year crop details.

What were the issues?

Whether the authorities below erred in disallowing a portion of the claimed agricultural income and treating it as 'Income from Other Sources' without valid reasons, despite documentary evidence.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Smt. Renugadevi, JCIT

Hearing: 06.02.2018Pronounced: 09.02.2018

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the orders of CIT(A) on common grounds. For the sake of reference, we extract the grounds raised in ITA No.1460/Bang/2017:

That, the orders of the Authorities below for the assessment year 2011-12, in so for as is pre- judicial to the interests of the appellant, is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That, the Authorities below have erred in determining the taxable Income by adding/disallowing a portion of the agricultural income as "Income from Other Sources", disbelieving the documentary evidenced furnished in support thereof without assigning any valid reason what so ever.

3. That, in spite of the specific request of the appellant for additional time to furnish further documentary evidence, the Assessing Officer has chosen to conclude the assessment by disallowing a portion of the agricultural income and treating the same as "Income from Other Sources" and bringing to tax.

4. That the appellant furnished the "Record of Rights" (RTC) issued by the State Revenue Authorities in support of his agricultural land holdings and the crops grown, where in the issuing authority has clearly mentioned that "as the current year crop details have not been furnished the earlier year crop grown are mentioned", however, the authorities below have chosen to ignore the qualification of the State Authorities and there by erroneously disbelieved the documentary evidence furnished to make additions to Returned Income. 5. That, the Authorities below have erred in law and facts by disallowing the agricultural income returned by the appellant on estimation/adhoc basis without bringing any contrary evidence what so ever. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave of the honourable Tribunal to add, delete, amend or otherwise modify any one or more of the above grounds either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

This appeal came up for hearing on 06.02.2018 but none appeared despite valid service of notice of hearing. We therefore had no option but to hear the appeal ex-parte and accordingly revenue was heard.

We have carefully examined the order of the CIT(A) in the light of the rival submissions and we find that CIT(A) had adjudicated the issue raised before it in detail and since we do not find any infirmity therein, we confirm his order.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on 9th February, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →