SUNA NATH,KORAPUT vs. ITO, JEYPORE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-

Berhampur, dated 24.2.2014 for the assessment year 2009-2010.

the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer making

addition of Rs.3 lakh as unexplained investment in the capital of the firm.

authorities and materials available on record. The Assessing Officer

observed that the assessee invested Rs.3,00,000/- in the capital of the firm

M/s. Sunley Jewellers, in which the assessee is a partner. The assessee

ITA No. 207/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 09- 201 0

explained the source of the capital in the firm to be out of his earlier year’s

income for which the assessee filed copies of return of income of last three

years before the Assessing Officer, wherein, the assessee has shown

returned income of Rs.1,55,980/- and agricultural income of Rs.32,600/-

in assessment year 2007-08, returned income of Rs.1,64,150/- and

agricultural income of Rs.34,600/- in assessment year 2008-09 and

returned income of Rs.2,08,940/- and agricultural income of Rs.39,200/-

in assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer did not accept the

explanation of the assessee on the ground that all the returns of income

were filed by the assessee after survey was conducted in the premises of

the firm on 3.3.2009 and added Rs.3,00,000/- to the income of the

assessee as unexplained investment of the assessee.

observing as under:

“I have carefully considered the matter and gone through the assessment records. Admittedly, the returns in this case have been filed after the survey was conducted in the premises of the firm in which the appellant is a partner. Therefore, not much credence can be given to the returns filed unless independent corroborating evidence is furnished in support of the statements made in the return particularly relating to availability of the opening capital as on 01-04- 2006 which is primarily intended to explain the investment during the impugned assessment year. When the appellant admittedly did not have any taxable income in earlier years, it is not understood as to how he could have a opening capital of Rs.5,46,433/-. The appellant has not produced any corroborating evidence like copy of the bank account or receipt of any money from sale of any investment or property to support its contention that he has enough cash with him to make the investment. In the absence of any such evidence, I am

ITA No. 207/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 09- 201 0

not inclined to interfere with the action of the AO in treating the source of this investment of Rs.3 lacs in the firm as income from undisclosed sources. The addition of Rs.3. lacs is accordingly confirmed and the ground No.1 is thus dismissed.” 5. Before me, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee could not

point out any error in the order of the CIT(A) or produce any positive

material to controvert the findings of the ld CIT(A). Therefore, I do not find

any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A),

which is hereby confirmed and, accordingly, dismiss this ground of the

appeal.

the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in

disallowing agricultural income of Rs.35,800/-.

authorities and materials available on record. The Assessing Officer

observed that the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of

Rs.39,200/-. The assessee explained that the assessee had agricultural

land of Ac.1.00 from which he has produced sugar cane worth Rs.58,400/-

. The Assessing Officer made enquiries through Income tax Inspector who

reported that the assessee could not produce any details of such landed

property and other details relating to agricultural income. Therefore, the

Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee about agricultural

income and made addition of Rs.39,200/- as income from other sources,

and on appeal, the addition was confirmed by the CIT(A) .

ITA No. 207/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 09- 201 0

family members of the assessee in the case of Bhagaban Nath in ITA

No.205/CTK/2014 for Assessment Year 2009-2010, wherein, I have

decided the issue vide order of even date, observing as under:

“ I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs.60,240/-. The assessee explained that the assessee had agricultural land of Ac.2.00 from which he has produced sugar cane worth Rs.1,19,400/-. The Assessing Officer made enquiries through Income tax Inspector who reported that the assessee could not produce any details of such landed property and other details relating to agricultural income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee about agricultural income and made addition of Rs.60,240/- as income from other sources. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he carried out agricultural activity and received income from the same for Rs.60,240/-. He furnished details like ownership of the land, agricultural activity carried out and yield received etc. The Assessing officer rejected the claim and alleged that the assessee has not furnished any details. He relied on the report furnished by the report of the Inspector who confirmed that the assessee did not carry the agricultural activity during the assessment year. Without keeping any material on record to say that the assessee has not carried out the agricultural activity, treating the agricultural income as taxable income and added the same to the returned income was unjust and arbitrary. The CIT(A) called for a remand report who vide letter dated 17.1.2014 stated that the assessee could not furnish the source of agricultural income of Rs.60,240/- and the addition was justified as income from other sources.. In response to the remand report, the assessee reiterated the submissions made earlier. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that it was a settled principle of law that the burden is on the assessee to prove that the income was agricultural income. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs.

ITA No. 207/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 09- 201 0

Genkateswamy Naidu, 29 ITR 529 (SC), wherein, it has been held that in order to claim an income which the assessee considers as agricultural income, the assessee has to put before the authorities materials which will enable them to come to a conclusion that the income which was sought to be assessed was agricultural income. It was not for the authorities to prove that it was not agricultural income. He observed that from perusal of assessment records, it is seen that the assessee filed a lease deed ostensively showing that he had taken agricultural land on lease from 1.2.2008 to 31.9.2009 for Rs.4,000/-. The assessee stated that he produced sugar cane on such leased land and the income was derived therefrom. He observed that most of the family members of the assesse, whose appeals are being disposed of namely, Natabar Nath, Smt. Suna Nath, Pradip Kumar Das, Khetrabasi Nath, Batakrushna Nath and Ranjan Kumar Nath have all claimed that they had derived agricultural income by way of sale of sugar cane out of leased land. If their contentions are accepted then the total sugar cane apparently sold by the family members of the assessee will exceed Rs.8 lakhs. He observed that it was surprising that the assessee was unable to give a shred of evidence in support of his sugar cane cultivation or in support of sale of such sugar cane which will normally be to a sugar mill. In absence of any such evidence, he was not inclined to accept the contention of the assessee regarding its claim of agricultural income. Therefore, he confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer treating the agricultural income shown by the assessee as income from other sources and dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before me.

Ld Authorised Representative of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. I find after considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality that the Assessing Officer has not considered the income of Rs.60,240/- shown by the assessee as agricultural income but treated the same as income from other sources of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to produce evidence being sugar cane cultivation and sale of sugar cane. Before me also the assessee has failed to produce any evidence in that regard. Therefore, I find no good and justifiable reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities and dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee.” 9. Following the same, I confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) and dismiss

the ground of appeal of the assessee.

ITA No. 207/CT K/ 2014 Asse ssment Year :20 09- 201 0

Cuttack; Dated 28/03/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Suna Nath, Post Office Road, Koraput 2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward-2, Jeypore 3. The CITA), Berhampur 4. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar. 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack