2021 (7) TMI 249 - AT - Income Tax

Sale of agricultural land - proof of Agricultural income - HELD THAT - Assessee has not been able to prove ownership of the agricultural lands per se which could give rise to the income claimed as exempt u/s. 10(1) of the Act. No rebuttal has come from the assessee's side in the case file. We thus confirm both the lower authorities' action making the impugned disallowance.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal condonation, Addition of income, Opportunity provided for furnishing explanations and evidences

Delay in filing appeal condonation:
The appellant's appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 was delayed by 19 days, attributed to reasons beyond their control. The department did not rebut the delay, leading to its condonation. The delay was condoned by the tribunal.

Addition of income:
The appellant contested the addition of ?24,17,633 made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant provided evidence supporting agricultural land holdings and income sources to justify the expenditure incurred. However, the CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the agricultural income certificates provided were only valid for bank loans and not for civil or criminal proceedings. The appellant failed to prove ownership of the agricultural lands and the substantial amount of cash claimed as income. The tribunal confirmed the lower authorities' decision to disallow the claimed exemption under section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Opportunity provided for furnishing explanations and evidences:
The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment without providing adequate opportunity to furnish explanations and evidence regarding the sources of income. The CIT(A) dismissed this ground, emphasizing that procedural matters do not override substantive provisions of the law. Referring to Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, the tribunal held that technical or procedural omissions do not invalidate proceedings under the Act. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim regarding the opportunity provided for furnishing explanations and evidences.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the addition of income and condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The decision was based on the lack of proof of ownership of agricultural lands and the failure to substantiate the claimed income. The tribunal also emphasized that technical or procedural omissions do not invalidate proceedings under the Income Tax Act.