2013 (11) TMI 60 - AT - Income Tax

Whether the undisclosed income is agricultural income eligible for exemption u/s 10 of the Income Tax Act Held that - From the Inspector s report dated 18-12-2003 it emerges that the villagers S/Shri Khubi Ramm, Nambardar, Balak Ram, Tula Ram and Jaise Ram, who were residents of village Anangpur had confirmed that assessee has cultivated saffeda trees on 7 acres of agricultural road side land, which were sold about 4-5 years back. These confirmations do indicate that assessee in this year had sold saffeda trees and earned agriculture income. Patwari also has supported their statements and Inspector s report has not given any adverse comment about A.Y. 1998-99 rather it corroborates ld. Counsel s contention. Assessee has pleaded his inability in producing the details of agriculture income before lower authorities due to lapse of time. No additional evidence is filed before us, however, a prayer is made that the facts on record indicate the assessee having earned agriculture income, alternatively agricultural income may be estimated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, record demonstrates a fact that assessee had grown and sold saffeda trees on 7 acres of this road side land during the period relevant to A.Y. 1998-99 50% of the income treated as agriculture income - Decided partly in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether agricultural income of Rs. 8 lakhs declared by the assessee should be taxed as income from undisclosed sources.
2. Whether the lower authorities erred in rejecting the claim of agricultural income based on lack of evidence.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The assessing officer rejected the claim of agricultural income of Rs. 8 lakhs by stating that no cultivation of saffeda trees was being undertaken by the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld this decision based on the report of an Inspector and the absence of authentic government records supporting the cultivation of saffeda trees. The ITAT also affirmed this decision in a previous year's appeal where it was held that the assessee failed to prove the sale of saffeda trees worth Rs. 5 lakhs. However, the appellant argued that the observations in the ITAT's order impliedly supported the claim of agricultural income in preceding years. The appellant presented statements from villagers confirming the cultivation and sale of saffeda trees on the land, emphasizing the lapse of time between earning the income and the Inspector's inquiries. Eventually, the ITAT estimated the net agricultural income at Rs. 4,00,000/- for the relevant year.

Issue 2:
The appellant contended that the lower authorities erred in rejecting the claim of agricultural income without considering the corroborative statements from villagers and the lack of adverse comments from the Patwari or Inspector for the relevant assessment year. The appellant highlighted the inability to produce relevant records due to the passage of time and argued for the acceptance or estimation of agricultural income based on the available evidence. The ITAT, after considering the confirmations from villagers and the Patwari's support, estimated the agricultural income at Rs. 4,00,000/-, emphasizing the importance of justice in the decision.

In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the assessee's appeal, estimating the net agricultural income at Rs. 4,00,000/- for the assessment year in question, based on the corroborative statements and circumstances indicating the cultivation and sale of saffeda trees by the assessee.