2017 (3) TMI 687 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained investments - Held that - According to the assessee, house sites were acquired for consideration of ₹ 20 lakhs wherein the market value was ₹ 99,25,000 as per the records of Sub-Registrar s Office. However, the A.O. has called upon the assessee to prove the source of investment of ₹ 20 lakhs only, which was claimed to have been paid, plus registration charges of ₹ 3,43,025. Thus the total expenditure under consideration was ₹ 23,43,025. The investment was claimed to be from withdrawals and agricultural income. As per the information furnished before the A.O. an amount of ₹ 15 lakhs was drawn from the partnership firm, besides agricultural income of ₹ 6,55,000. The Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons while coming to the conclusion that this amount of ₹ 15 lakhs withdrawn from the partnership firm cannot be linked to the investments made in purchase of house sites and accordingly rejected the contention of the assessee. The availability of ₹ 6,55,000 having been accepted no further addition was made except confirming the addition of ₹ 15 lakhs under section 69 of the Act. No infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. With regard to source of agricultural income, it is not in dispute that the land is not in the name of the assessee and there is no proof that assessee earned agricultural income. Merely because the assessee s husband owns some land, it cannot be assumed that the land was cultivated by his wife and she earned agricultural income. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A) benefit of agricultural income cannot be given merely based on Tahsildar s certificate, unless specific evidence is placed before the tax authorities. In the instant case, no such evidence could be placed. Therefore, did not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition under section 69/68 of the Act for unexplained investment.
3. Treatment of agricultural income as income from other sources.
4. Rejection of claim of agricultural income.
5. Charging interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against the order passed by the CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. The appellant challenged the best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had made additions under section 69 of the Act due to the lack of response from the assessee and the absence of material to support the declared income. The A.O. observed that the appellant failed to provide necessary details despite multiple notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The A.O. added amounts under section 69 and treated agricultural income as income from other sources.

2. The CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s actions, stating that the appellant's non-compliance justified invoking section 144. Regarding the investment in house sites, the appellant claimed that a portion was from a partnership firm and the rest from agricultural income and savings. However, the CIT(A) rejected the claim that the withdrawn amount from the partnership firm was used for the land investment. The CIT(A) partially accepted the argument on agricultural income but confirmed the addition under section 69.

3. The rejection of the claim of agricultural income was based on the lack of evidence supporting the ownership and actual earnings. The CIT(A) emphasized that merely owning land does not prove agricultural income, citing the requirement for proper material to establish earnings. The decision highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence beyond mere certificates. As the appellant failed to provide such evidence, the CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision.

4. The Tribunal considered the contentions of both parties and reviewed the records. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s findings on the source of investment and the treatment of agricultural income. The Tribunal agreed that the withdrawn amount from the partnership firm was not linked to the land investment and that the appellant failed to substantiate the agricultural income claim. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

5. The Tribunal's decision on the issues related to the best judgment assessment, addition under section 69, treatment of agricultural income, and rejection of the claim of agricultural income was final. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 15.03.2017.