2018 (11) TMI 1486 - AT - Income Tax

Chargeability of profit on sale of land - business income or capital gain - Held that - Merely because the assessee has entered into few transactions of purchase and sale of plot of land in past, during the year it cannot be said that assessee has sold the property is a trader. It was stated by the learned authorised representative that the assessee acquired the land out of its own fund, the agricultural income was also shown on that agricultural plot of land, disclosed as investment in books of accounts and not stock in trade, and therefore all these factors go to show that the assessee is an investor. These facts have not been denied by DR - when assessee held land for more than three years without borrowing funds and classified the same in its books of accounts , it cannot be said that assessee is not an investor. It is immaterial that the history of the assessee shows the various transactions of the purchase and sale of land, it may be the issue in that particular year. Accordingly direct the AO to treat the profit shown by the assessee of Laxmipur patti Land of ₹ 5.32 lakhs as long-term capital gain and Jaitpur Ghoshi land profit of ₹ 5.60 lakhs as short-term capital gain. Addition made as income from other sources instead of agricultural income - Held that - The assessee did not show that how agricultural income has been earned by the assessee without putting any effort when learned assessing officer has shown that there is no relation between the period during the which the expenditure is debited in the ledger and the crop season. The receipts by Samiti are not the proof of agricultural activities but it may be the proof of selling of the agricultural produce. The assessee did not produce the bills for purchase of seeds and fertilizer. The assessee has also not given the copies of Kishan Bahi, Khasra Khatauani, and bills and vouchers for agricultural operation. The learned assessing officer has also shown that one of the agricultural produce shown by the assessee is labourintensive and no labour expenditure is shown. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in treating the income of ₹ 44135 as income from other sources. - Decided against assessee. Addition on account of alleged low household withdrawals - Held that - The assessee has shown the household expenditure at a very low figure compared to the living standard shown by the learned assessing officer. The assessee also could not produce that how he is managing in such a low expenditure for household. No infirmity in the order of the learned commissioner appeals in deleting the addition of ₹ 70,000 and retaining the addition of ₹ 1 09650/ on account of low household withdrawal. Looking into the family size, the status of the assessee and the detailed analysis of the various nature of expenditure likely to be incurred by the learned assessing officer has shown , and in absence of any plausible explanation by the assessee, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned assessing officer. He has minutely calculated the expenditure on clothing, festival, and social obligation, religious expenses, entertainment expenses and medical and electricity expenses. The addition confirmed by the CIT-A is appropriate - Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Chargeability of profit on sale of land at Laxmipur Patti and Jaitpur Ghoshi
2. Addition of agricultural income as income from other sources
3. Addition of alleged low household withdrawals

Analysis:

Issue 1: Chargeability of profit on sale of land at Laxmipur Patti and Jaitpur Ghoshi
The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the income from trading in land as business income, considering the systematic buying and selling of land by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals upheld this decision, emphasizing the substantial investment in property by the assessee. However, the ITAT Delhi reversed this finding, stating that holding land for more than three years without borrowing funds and classifying it in the books of accounts as an investment indicates the assessee's status as an investor. The ITAT directed the AO to treat the profits from the sale of land as long-term and short-term capital gains, respectively.

Issue 2: Addition of agricultural income as income from other sources
The AO added the agricultural income as income from other sources, as the assessee failed to provide evidence such as bills for purchase of seeds and fertilizers to substantiate the agricultural activities. The ITAT Delhi upheld this decision, noting the lack of proof regarding agricultural operations and expenditures. The ITAT dismissed the appeal, affirming the addition of agricultural income as income from other sources.

Issue 3: Addition of alleged low household withdrawals
The AO made an addition based on the alleged low household withdrawals by the assessee, considering the family size and living standards. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals partially deleted this addition but retained a significant portion. The ITAT Delhi upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the detailed analysis of various expenditures and the lack of plausible explanations from the assessee. The ITAT dismissed the appeal, confirming the addition of alleged low household withdrawals.

In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, reversing the chargeability of profit on the sale of land and confirming the additions related to agricultural income and low household withdrawals.