RATHINAM VISWANATHAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, CIRCLE 1(1), TRICHY

आदेश /O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:

i. Agricultural income ii. Details of Assets and Liabilities Accordingly, the AO called for the details of agricultural holding, documents relating to cultivation and sale of agricultural produce. The assessee before AO contended that he holds 46.25 acres of land in Varaganeri Village and 4.90 acres in Kuvalakudi Village.

Apart from these owned lands, he had lease hold lands of 18.44 acres in Varaganeri Village and 1.60 acres in Kuvalakudi Village. The assessee before AO contended that the assessee made earnest attempts to get the certificate from the respective Village Administrative Officers but due to pandemic, the efforts did not bear fruits within the time allowed but he, filed the details of land holding. The AO noted the details of agricultural land but disallowed the claim of agricultural income claimed by assessee at Rs.57,96,400/- by observing as under:- “2.5 In absence of the requisite details called for related with the agricultural income claimed by the assessee, the genuineness of this exempt income claimed during the year could not be proved. Therefore, it is concluded that the assessee have no documentary evidences to substantiate his claim of Agricultural Income. Keeping in view of the same, agricultural income amounting to Rs.57,96,400/-is hereby disallowed and added back to income of the assessee under the head income from other sources.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A).

Assessment Year Agricultural income Agricultural income Order u/s. admitted assessed 2014-15 12,50,000 12,50,000 143(3) dt 16-12-16 2015-16 10,90,927 10,90,927 143(1) 2016-17 19,86,600 19,86,600 143(3) dt 4-12-18 2017-18 50,81,650 40,65,320 143(3) dt 31-12-19 This fact is not disputed by the Revenue that the assessee was having own agricultural land or lease hold agricultural land to the extent of 71.19 acres. This is also an admitted fact that the assessment was completed on 10.03.2021, the period was failing under pandemic and as contended by assessee, that he made earnest attempts to get certificate from respective Village Administrative Officers and other documents but could not get it in the short time given. The assessee before AO as well as before CIT(A) and even now during the course of argument admitted that the assessee is cultivating plantain or banana on these lands and derived agricultural income. It is also admitted by the assessee that the agricultural sector is unorganised and the proof for sale of crops alone were available with him but few sample bills were produced before the AO or CIT(A) because he could not obtain the entire bills. As the assessee could not produce the details like agricultural produce, expenses incurred thereof, crop grown or consequent sale bills to justify the agricultural income declared, the CIT(A) restricted the agricultural income on historical data by adopting a figure of Rs.19.86 lakhs as in assessment year 2016-17. Even the assessee has declared agricultural income in recent years and agricultural income is assessed at Rs.40,65,320/- in assessment year 2017-18 u/s.143(3) of the Act. Hence, it cannot be denied that there is substantial agricultural land holding with the assessee admeasuring 71.19 acres and assessee is regularly earning agricultural income and disclosing in the return of income and accepted by the Revenue even in scrutiny assessment. Now the question comes for quantification. Going by the land holding and the nature of produce i.e., cultivation of plantain or bananas on these lands, the assessee seems to be earning substantial income. Hence, we estimate agricultural income of the assessee at Rs.40,00,000/- and restrict the disallowance of Rs.17,96,400/-, that is to be assessed as ‘income from other sources’. In term of

Order pronounced in the open court on 6th September, 2024 at Chennai.