2015 (10) TMI 1392 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of excess agricultural income under the head income from other sources - Held that - No merit in the appeal of the assessee. The assessee has declared agricultural income of ₹ 32 lacs and admitted before Assessing Officer that assessee and his brother and mother are also having agricultural land and their total income is around ₹ 10 lacs to ₹ 12 lacs approximately and the share of the assessee comes to ₹ 3 lacs p.a. It would, therefore, show that whatever agricultural income was established in the return of income, was not earned out of agricultural operation and was, thus, rightly considered by the authorities below to be income from other sources . The onus upon assessee to prove earning of the agricultural income thus, not substantiated through any evidence on record. Even before ld. CIT(Appeals) , the assessee failed to substantiate regarding earning of the agricultural income. Therefore, authorities below were justified in rejecting the claim of assessee of earning agricultural income.- Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to addition of excess agricultural income under 'income from other sources' for assessment year 2009-10.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts and Background:
The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 23,04,000/- as excess agricultural income under the head 'income from other sources' for the assessment year 2009-10. The appellant had declared agricultural income of Rs. 32 lacs and 'income from business and profession' at Rs. 1,17,500/- in the return of income filed on 29.09.2009.

2. Assessing Officer's Findings:
The Assessing Officer asked for evidence regarding agricultural income, landholding details, and copies of Form-J related to the sale of agricultural products. The appellant claimed to have been advised by Immigration Consultants to show inflated agricultural income. The Assessing Officer computed the agricultural income at Rs. 8,96,000/- based on lease agreements and treated the balance as 'income from other sources.'

3. Challenge Before CIT(Appeals):
The appellant contested the addition, claiming the declared agricultural income was not earned, and the addition was made on suspicion without evidence of bogus capital formation. However, the CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition, stating the onus to prove agricultural income was not met.

4. Arguments Before Tribunal:
The appellant's counsel argued that proper advice was not given earlier, and some documents related to the father's agricultural land were submitted without a formal request for admission. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' orders.

5. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal. The appellant failed to substantiate the declared agricultural income as earned from operations, leading to the conclusion that it was 'income from other sources.' The claim of the father's agricultural income was raised for the first time at the Tribunal, which was not admissible without proper evidence. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, considering the lack of evidence in favor of the appellant.

6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the agricultural income declared in the return. The claim regarding the father's income was not accepted due to lack of substantiation and proper procedure for presenting additional evidence. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the addition of excess agricultural income as 'income from other sources.'

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the addition of excess agricultural income under 'income from other sources' for the assessment year 2009-10, due to the appellant's failure to substantiate the declared agricultural income and lack of proper evidence supporting the claim.