2016 (4) TMI 248 - AT - Income Tax

Computation of capital gains - authentication of documents - Held that - The assessee has claimed only ₹ 1,70,00 as brokerage, which amount was increased to ₹ 2 lakhs. Had these receipts been genuinely paid and received at that point of time, the assessee would not have made any claim at incorrect amount of ₹ 1,70,000. Therefore, the authenticity of the receipt itself is doubtful. As already stated, no corroborative evidence is furnished, nor the receipt has any revenue stamp on it. Identity of the recipient is also not established. In view of this, we are not inclined to consider the assessee s claim of the payment for brokerage. Coming the claim of improvements and development cost on the land when the Assessing Officer asked for evidence, nothing was placed on record, indicating that this could be an afterthought, once the assessee came to know that he has to offer higher capital gains because the assessee has taken sale consideration at a lesser amount in the original return. Even though there are certain claims made in the original computation itself, since they are not supported by any evidence, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the same. When these were pointed out to the learned counsel, in the course of arguments, he has submitted that the Assessing Officer could have disallowed some amount and allowed the balance. This itself indicates that there is no genuineness in the claim. Therefore, we are not inclined to consider the assessee s contention on the above two claims, As already stated, since the documents were not admitted by the CIT(A) as additional evidence, this forum also cannot admit the same as the documents, in the absence of any prayer for admission as additional evidence. In view of this, we uphold the orders of the first appellate authority - Decided against assessee Treatment of agricultural income - Held that - The assessee has furnished certain evidence of transfer of money from Tuni and Vizag to the assessee, but it does not establish that these amounts are indicative of the agricultural operations by the assessee to that extent. Moreover, the learned CIT(A) finds that the Authorised Representative submitted that the agricultural land has been leased out to various parties and filed confirmation from the lessors. But, as seen from the documents placed in the paper-book, these are not lease rentals received from the agricultural lands, but sale proceeds, which are stated to have been transferred from the place of agricultural lands to the assessee through clerk. We are not sure whether the assessee is cultivating the lands or leased out the agricultural lands to some third parties. There is also no clarity from the assessee as to the actual activities. In the absence of any evidence to differ from the findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), we are not inclined to disturb their findings. We accordingly uphold their orders and reject the grounds of the assessee on this issue.- Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Computation of capital gains
2. Treatment of agricultural income

Computation of Capital Gains:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IV, Hyderabad, concerning the computation of capital gains and treatment of agricultural income. The assessee initially admitted long-term capital gains at Rs. 52,51,271 based on a sale consideration of Rs. 85 lakhs. Later, in a revised return during assessment proceedings, the sale consideration was increased to Rs. 1 crore, resulting in long-term capital gains of Rs. 60,84,120. However, the Assessing Officer, due to lack of evidence for claimed brokerage and cost of improvement, reworked the long-term capital gains to Rs. 83,21,038. The authenticity of additional evidence provided by the assessee for brokerage and property improvement was questioned, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's claims by the appellate authority.

Treatment of Agricultural Income:
The Assessing Officer questioned the declared agricultural income of Rs. 10,56,000, asking for evidence of agricultural land holdings and related receipts and expenditures. The assessee failed to provide evidence, and after discussions, the Assessing Officer disallowed an additional amount of Rs. 2,36,000, which was accepted by the assessee. The assessee contested this before the CIT(A) by submitting additional evidence, but the CIT(A) refused to admit the evidence as it was not presented during the original assessment and no explanation was provided. The appellate tribunal upheld the decision, noting discrepancies in the evidence presented by the assessee and lack of clarity regarding the actual agricultural activities conducted.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the orders of the lower authorities regarding the computation of capital gains and treatment of agricultural income. The lack of authenticated evidence, discrepancies in the presented documents, and failure to establish the genuineness of claims led to the rejection of the assessee's contentions. The tribunal found no reason to disturb the findings of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) and upheld their decisions.