2018 (10) TMI 294 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - treating the agricultural income as non agricultural income - whether income earned by the appellant was agriculture and will tantamount to income by overriding title.? - Held that - Findings of the Assessing Officer was never dispelled by the assessee by placing contra evidence. Admittedly, the assessee was never the owner of the agricultural properties from where it is claimed that he was in receipt of agricultural income of ₹ 12,36,000. The assessee did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that he was in receipt of any agricultural income on account of any agricultural operation carried out by him. Therefore, we are of the view that the Income-tax Authorities have correctly held that the assessee was not in receipt of ₹ 12,36,000 as agricultural income. Having held ₹ 12,36,000 as not agricultural income, the sum that is credited to the book of account has to be necessarily added as income from other sources u/s 68 of the I.T.Act. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of agricultural income as non-agricultural income under section 68.
2. Whether the appellant was entitled to the agricultural income.
3. Taxation of income in the hands of relevant owners.
4. Taxing receipts as non-agricultural income when the appellant is not the owner of the properties.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Treatment of agricultural income as non-agricultural income under section 68
The Assessing Officer treated the declared agricultural income as income from other sources under section 68 due to the lack of evidence supporting the ownership of the agricultural properties by the appellant. The CIT(A) upheld this treatment, emphasizing the absence of proof linking the income to agriculture. The Tribunal concurred, noting the failure to produce documentation establishing the appellant's entitlement to the income. Consequently, the sum was added as income from other sources under section 68.

Issue 2: Entitlement to agricultural income
The Assessing Officer determined that the appellant was not the owner of the agricultural properties from which the income was claimed. Despite the appellant's assertions of involvement in agricultural operations, the Assessing Officer found no evidence supporting this claim. The Tribunal affirmed this assessment, highlighting the appellant's inability to substantiate receipt of agricultural income. The absence of ownership and operational evidence led to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the declared agricultural income.

Issue 3: Taxation in the hands of relevant owners
The appellant argued that if not entitled to the agricultural income, it should be taxed in the hands of the relevant owners, not under other sources. However, the Assessing Officer's examination of property documents revealed ownership by other family members, not the appellant. As a result, the income could not be attributed to the appellant or the family members, leading to its classification as income from other sources under section 68.

Issue 4: Taxing receipts as non-agricultural income
The Assessing Officer's detailed analysis of property ownership and income sources concluded that the appellant had no share in the agricultural properties generating income. Despite claims of family involvement in agricultural operations, the appellant failed to provide supporting documentation. The Tribunal upheld this assessment, emphasizing the lack of evidence establishing the appellant's receipt of agricultural income. Consequently, the income was correctly treated as non-agricultural and added under section 68.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decisions to treat the declared agricultural income as non-agricultural income under section 68 due to the appellant's failure to establish ownership or entitlement to the income.