2015 (10) TMI 1075 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained income - Held that - It is clearly accepted at the level of AO as well as CIT(A) that the assessee was engaged in the agricultural activities and was holding agricultural land measuring 69913 sq. metres (as per 7/12) which was purchased by him in parts from 21.6.1989 to December, 1994. The appellant has shown that he was cultivating crops like bajra, maka, etc. and his main source of income, therefore, he was not filing return of income and it is apparent that these facts have not been disputed by the AO nor has he disputed crops produced as per 7/12 submitted to him. Further the ld. CIT(A) has made an estimated basis of calculating estimated income, estimated expenses and estimated household expenses on an overall estimate basis. Looking to the facts that the assessee is aged about 43 years at the close of the AY and he has been carrying on agricultural operations since 1989 which certainly gave him regular earning and after meeting household expenses some savings cannot be ignored. However, this is also a fact that the assessee has not been able to furnish proper details of his savings and earnings in previous years which in normal cases are being rarely maintained by the agriculturists as their income is exempt from tax. Therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances as well as nature of source of income of the assessee and estimates made by CIT(A) it will be justifiable to reduce the addition from ₹ 6,37,000/- to ₹ 1,00,000/- only and the same is confirmed. The assessee gets part relief. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 637,000 on account of unexplained income.
2. Validity of the CIT(A)'s partial acceptance and partial rejection of the appellant's grounds.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 637,000 on Account of Unexplained Income:
The primary issue in this appeal concerns the addition of Rs. 637,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained income from the opening balance of the capital account as of 01/04/2002. The appellant argued that the opening capital balance of Rs. 11,33,682 was derived from agricultural activities and investments made over the years. The AO, however, added the entire opening balance to the income, citing the appellant's failure to file previous returns and questioning the necessity of appointing a Chartered Accountant (CA) for an agriculturist.

Upon appeal, the CIT(A) partially accepted the appellant's claims, confirming that investments in agricultural land, animals, and LIC premiums were genuine but did not accept the cash in hand of Rs. 660,916 as explained. The CIT(A) estimated that the appellant's net agricultural income prior to AY 2003-04 could not exceed Rs. 76,212 per year, and after accounting for household expenses, the appellant could have saved only Rs. 128,000 by 31/03/2002. Thus, the CIT(A) concluded that the cash in hand was inflated by Rs. 637,000.

The Tribunal, upon review, acknowledged that the appellant had been engaged in agricultural activities since 1989 and recognized the challenges in maintaining detailed records for exempt agricultural income. However, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s estimates to be overly conservative and reduced the addition from Rs. 637,000 to Rs. 100,000, granting partial relief to the appellant.

2. Validity of the CIT(A)'s Partial Acceptance and Partial Rejection:
The appellant contested the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the addition of Rs. 637,000 while granting relief for the remaining balance. The appellant maintained that the entire opening balance was duly explained through investments and agricultural income. The appellant also argued that the AO's rejection of the explanation was arbitrary and lacked supporting evidence of unaccounted income.

The Tribunal reviewed the CIT(A)'s methodology, which included estimating agricultural production, sale prices, and household expenses. It noted that while the appellant's inability to provide detailed records was a factor, the CIT(A)'s estimates did not fully account for the appellant's long-term agricultural operations and potential savings. The Tribunal thus adjusted the sustained addition to Rs. 100,000, considering the appellant's agricultural background and the practical challenges in maintaining detailed financial records for tax-exempt income.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision partially allowed the appeal, reducing the addition on account of unexplained income from Rs. 637,000 to Rs. 100,000. This adjustment acknowledged the appellant's agricultural activities and the inherent difficulties in maintaining exhaustive financial records for such income, while still addressing the need for some level of substantiation for the claimed opening balance.