J.MUTHULAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

This appeal is filed by the assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-6, Chennai dated 09.09.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12.

The only grievance of the assessee in her appeal is with regard to treatment of 60% of the agricultural income declared by the assessee as non agricultural income i.e. income from other sources.

The facts of the case are that the assessee declared agricultural income at ` 44,54,870/-. The ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that only ` 17,82,000/- is from the agriculture and the balance from 60% of agricultural income i.e 26,72,870/- is income from other sources on the reason that on the verification of expenditure shows that there is no match of labour expenses, fertilizers and pesticide expenses to the extent of crops grown in 28 acres. The assessee has not able to explain the said query and not able to produce supporting vouchers for expenses except for the value of few thousand rupees. According to ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee has shown some other income under the head of agriculture for which she has not explained the source. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of ld. Assessing Officer. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before us.

I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. It was submitted by ld.A.R that the assessee declared the agricultural income in subsequent assessment years. It was accepted by the AO at 75% of it. On the same basis, 75% of the present agricultural income to be considered as agricultural income and balance 25% to be treated as income from other sources as there should be consistency in the proceedings.