2022 (5) TMI 1153 - AT - Income Tax

Addition treating the agricultural income as income from other sources and enhancement by CIT-A - HELD THAT - As assessee produced certain evidences in support of his claim regarding earning of agricultural income. AO without verifying the correctness of claim and rebutting the evidences based his finding on certain statistical data. No material is brought on record by the Revenue to rebut the claim of assessee, regarding having higher yield of crops. The statistical data may reflect the trend but cannot be a conclusive proof regarding crop yield. There remains a sharp decline and rise in the yield of crops influenced by various factors. AO ought to have verified by making necessary inquiry about the correctness of claim of the assessee. No finding is given on the evidences filed by the assessee regarding the genuineness of evidences filed by the assessee. Hence, looking to the totality of facts, the addition was made purely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Such action is not permissible under law. The Revenue ought to have brought adverse material on records to rebut the claim of the assessee. In the absence of such evidence, the impugned additions cannot be sustained. Hence, the AO is hereby directed to delete the addition. The grounds raised in the assessee's appeal are thus, allowed. - Appeal of assessee allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act based on limited scrutiny under CASS.
2. Addition of alleged excess agricultural income and expenses without considering appellant's replies.
3. Validity of show cause notice for the addition made.
4. Compliance with legal principles while passing the assessment order.
5. Enhancement of assessed income under section 251(1)(a) of the Act.
6. Absence of appellant during the hearing.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, contending that the notice under section 143(2) was issued based on "Limited Scrutiny under CASS" without meeting jurisdictional conditions. The Tribunal found that the AO did not adequately verify the agricultural income claimed by the assessee, solely relying on statistical data without rebutting the appellant's evidence. As no adverse material was presented to counter the claim, the addition was deemed speculative and not permissible under the law. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition, allowing the appeal.

2. The appellant disputed the addition of Rs. 13,07,933 as excess agricultural income and alleged expenses, arguing that it was based on conjectures and surmises without objectively considering their responses. The Tribunal observed that the AO failed to verify the correctness of the claim or address the evidence provided by the appellant. As the addition lacked a factual basis and was not supported by any adverse material, it was deemed impermissible under the law, leading to the direction for deletion of the addition.

3. The appellant raised concerns about the validity of the show cause notice for the addition made, asserting that it was vague and invalid. The Tribunal noted the absence of any findings by the Revenue on the genuineness of the evidence submitted by the appellant. As the addition was solely based on conjectures and surmises without concrete evidence or rebuttal of the appellant's claims, it was deemed unsustainable under the law, warranting the deletion of the addition.

4. The appellant contended that the assessment order flouted legal principles, citing the observations of the Allahabad High Court and the fundamental policy of Indian law. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a judicial approach, independent application of mind, and avoidance of perverse or irrational decisions in passing orders. As the AO failed to adhere to these principles and the addition was speculative without concrete evidence, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition, upholding the appellant's appeal.

5. The appellant challenged the enhancement of the assessed income under section 251(1)(a) of the Act, arguing that it went beyond the matters arising from the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in examining a new source of income without proper justification, especially when separate provisions existed for such cases. The Tribunal concluded that the enhancement was unwarranted, directing the AO to delete the additional amount and allowing the appeal.

6. The absence of the appellant during the hearing was noted, with the Tribunal proceeding with the case due to the lack of representation. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a correct address and notifying any changes to the Registry to ensure proper communication and representation during proceedings. Despite the absence of the appellant, the Tribunal reviewed the case based on the available records and evidence presented, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal.