2019 (9) TMI 554 - AT - Income Tax

Characterization of income - Treatment to agricultural income as income from other sources - Disallowance of household expenses - HELD THAT - The assessee has filed copy of the lease deed as noted above which are Dated 08.08.2011 and 05.07.2011. Therefore, these would prove agricultural land taken by assessee on lease in respect of assessment year under appeal, therefore, the very basis of the A.O. to disallow claim of assessee have been negated by the Assessee. Both these lease deeds have been produced before the authorities below supported by copies of the bills of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti which clarify that assessee sold agricultural produce through M/s. Jagadamba Traders. M/s. Jagadamba Traders confirmed the selling of the agricultural produce by assessee through them and all the payments are made by cheque/RTGS to assessee through banking channel. Assessee was doing agricultural activities and earned agricultural income, therefore, there was no justification to treat the agricultural income as income from other sources. Further, assessee has explained that he has shown sufficient house hold expenses by self which contain electricity, water charges, medical, vehicle expenses etc. Other family members have also joined him in incurring the house hold expense which was noted above was more than the amount for which addition is made by the A.O. Therefore, there was no justification to make any addition on account of house hold expenses. Both the additions are wholly unjustified.- Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Addition of agricultural income
2. Addition of low household expenses

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Agricultural Income
The assessee declared income including agricultural income for the assessment year 2012-2013. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) raised concerns regarding the genuineness of the agricultural income claimed by the assessee. The A.O. issued notices under section 133(6) to verify various documents related to the agricultural income, such as lease deeds, sale bills, and expenses. The A.O. found discrepancies in the documents provided by the assessee, leading to doubts about the authenticity of the claimed agricultural income. The A.O. ultimately treated the entire amount as income from other sources and made an addition of the agricultural income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Upon appeal, the assessee presented detailed submissions and a plethora of documentary evidence to support the authenticity of the agricultural income. The appellate authority called for a remand report from the A.O. and collected additional information from the Directorate of Agriculture. Despite the explanations and evidence provided by the assessee, the appeal was dismissed by the lower authority due to lack of response from the assessee.

During the appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated the submissions made earlier and provided substantial documentary evidence, including lease deeds, sale bills, invoices, and confirmations from traders and agricultural authorities. The appellate tribunal carefully examined the evidence presented by the assessee, which convincingly demonstrated the genuineness of the agricultural income. The tribunal concluded that the additions made by the A.O. were unjustified, as the documentary evidence established that the assessee was engaged in agricultural activities and earned legitimate agricultural income. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the addition of agricultural income.

Issue 2: Addition of Low Household Expenses
Apart from the agricultural income, the A.O. also raised concerns regarding the household expenses claimed by the assessee. The A.O. questioned the adequacy of the household expenses debited by the assessee and made an additional adjustment on this account. The assessee challenged this addition before the appellate authority, providing explanations and supporting documents related to household expenses.

The tribunal carefully reviewed the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee concerning household expenses. The tribunal noted that the assessee had adequately justified the household expenses through a detailed breakdown of expenses incurred by both the assessee and other family members. The tribunal found that the total household expenses claimed were higher than the amount for which the A.O. had made an addition. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that there was no justification for the addition of low household expenses and decided in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the additions made by the A.O. regarding agricultural income and low household expenses.

← Previous Next →