9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 280 - HC - Income TaxAgriculture Income Income from other sources estimate bonafide held that - the approach adopted by the Assessing Officer, by not relying upon the material produced by the assessee in support of the estimation of income is wrong, because there is no finding that the material sought to be relied upon by the assessee was lacking in credibility. The certificate of average income per acre of land issued by the Village Patwari indicates the income level of Rs.36,000/- per acre which cannot be ignored. Moreover, the assessee had submitted the J-forms evidencing the sale of agricultural produce. No doubt, there is always an element of subjectivity in estimation. However, if it can be made out that the estimate is without any basis or is totally lacking the bona fides and only then the Assessing Officer would be justified in substituting his estimate in place of the estimation of agricultural income done by the assessee. There is no such situation in this case addition can not be made.
Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. Dispute regarding the declaration of agricultural income by the assessee. 3. Assessment of agricultural income by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. Tribunal's decision on the appeal filed by the assessee regarding agricultural income estimation. 5. Argument by the revenue that the Tribunal's findings are based on conjectures and surmises. Analysis: 1. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act was filed by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The substantial question of law raised was whether the Tribunal's decision was based on conjectures and surmises, ignoring the findings of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. The dispute revolved around the declaration of agricultural income by the assessee. The assessee declared income from cultivation of own and leased agricultural land. The Assessing Officer did not accept the declared income, determining it to be lower, and taxed the remaining amount as income from other sources. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the Assessing Officer's decision, leading to the assessee filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, considering the evidence produced by the assessee to support the estimation of agricultural income. 4. The Tribunal found that the assessee, being an agriculturist, had declared income in the past as well. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented by the assessee, including revenue records and J-forms, to support the estimate of agricultural income. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessing Officer's approach was flawed as there was no credible reason to reject the assessee's estimation. 5. The revenue argued that the agricultural income declared by the assessee was on the higher side and based on estimates. However, the High Court found no merit in the revenue's contention. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that there was no evidence of the assessee having a vested interest or motive to inflate the agricultural income. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose in the case as the Tribunal's decision was based on factual evidence and not conjectures or surmises.
|
