2019 (1) TMI 103 - AT - Income Tax

Determination of total income - assessment of agricultural income - Held that - The assessee has not brought on record any detail or evidence about item produced, quantity produced, sale price and details of expenses incurred such as seeds, fertilizer, labour charges and cost of transportation of produce to the market etc. The assessee has declared income of ₹ 2.80 Lakhs and exempt income (agriculture) of ₹ 25 Lakhs which has been accepted by the AO to the extent of ₹ 17 Lakhs on the basis of the detailed report of the Horticulture Department regarding realistic income. Before CIT(A) also, the assessee has not produced any details or evidence regarding quantity of crops sold, date on which sold, the cost of expenditure incurred, the rate at which sold etc. Before the Tribunal also, no such details are brought on record along with details of expenses incurred. The assessee has simply stated in Schedule 4 of statement of income that there is gross receipt of agricultural income of ₹ 27.50 Lakhs, expenditure of ₹ 2.50 Lakhs and Net income of ₹ 25 Lakhs. Under this factual position, find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. - decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:

1. Justification of the addition of ?7,00,003/- to the total income.
2. Consideration of agricultural income as exempt.
3. Adequacy of opportunity for hearing provided by CIT(A).
4. Validity of the assessment process and reliance on the Horticulture Department report.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the addition of ?7,00,003/- to the total income:

The assessee challenged the addition of ?7,00,003/- to the total income, arguing that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the income in question is exempt. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not maintain details regarding the quantity of crops sold, sale proceeds, or expenditure incurred. Consequently, the AO referred the matter to the officer of the agriculture department for verification. The report from the Dy. Director Horticulture calculated the income after considering the cost of cultivation, which the CIT(A) found reasonable. The AO adopted the agricultural income at ?18 lakhs, which was considered justified under the facts of the case. The Tribunal upheld this approach, stating that the assessee failed to provide necessary details or evidence regarding the quantity of crops sold, sale price, and expenses incurred. Therefore, the addition of ?7 lakhs as income from other sources was upheld.

2. Consideration of agricultural income as exempt:

The assessee argued that the agricultural income should be exempt and the question of making it taxable does not arise. The CIT(A) and AO, however, found discrepancies in the assessee's claims, particularly due to the lack of detailed records and the reliance on the Horticulture Department's report. The Tribunal noted that the assessee declared an exempt agricultural income of ?25 lakhs but failed to provide substantial evidence to support this claim, leading to the acceptance of only ?17 lakhs as agricultural income based on the Horticulture Department's report. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this decision.

3. Adequacy of opportunity for hearing provided by CIT(A):

The assessee contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without affording adequate opportunity for a hearing. However, the CIT(A) and AO noted that several opportunities were provided to the assessee to furnish the required details, which were not availed. The AO issued a show-cause notice regarding the adoption of agricultural income as per the Horticulture Department's report, and the assessee's reply was considered. The Tribunal found that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to present their case, and thus, the claim of inadequate hearing was not substantiated.

4. Validity of the assessment process and reliance on the Horticulture Department report:

The assessee argued that the Horticulture Department's report was not provided for countering and that the assessment relied heavily on this report without considering the actual agricultural practices. The CIT(A) and AO justified their reliance on the report, stating that it was prepared based on a scientific analysis of the yield per tree, market value of the crop, and cost of cultivation. The Tribunal upheld this reliance, noting that the assessee failed to provide any substantial evidence or details to counter the report's findings. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's claims were not supported by proper records or evidence, making the AO's and CIT(A)'s reliance on the Horticulture Department's report reasonable and justified.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order and the AO's assessment. The addition of ?7,00,003/- to the total income was justified due to the lack of detailed records and evidence from the assessee. The agricultural income was considered exempt only to the extent of ?17 lakhs, as determined by the Horticulture Department's report. The assessee was found to have been given adequate opportunity for a hearing, and the assessment process was validated. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

← Previous Next →