2023 (4) TMI 176 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - no proof/evidence of sale of crops - scrutiny assessment for the reason Large agricultural income shown in the return and large cash deposit during demonetization period - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute the assessee s income from agriculture of Rs. 16,95,356/- as against which the assessee could able to produce sale bills to the extent of Rs. 12,93,117/- as pleaded by the assessee being as aged factor and Senior Citizen is involved in the agriculture activities not by himself but with the help of agricultural labourers, who look after assessee s agricultural land and carried out agriculture activities on behalf of the assessee. Assessee also produced necessary documents namely Form No. 7/12 and 8A extracts which clearly states the assessee is owner of 96 bighas of agricultural land. For the earlier assessment year 2016-17 AO passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) accepting the returned agricultural income without making any disallowances. AO has not justified in simply making the addition u/s. 68 - In our considered opinion, the AO has disbelieved the statement of the assessee and the nature of trend in the agriculture sector wherein proper sale records could not be maintained by the small time agriculturist. For all these reasons, the addition made by the A.O. u/s. 68 is not sustainable in law - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Assessment of agricultural income for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
2. Addition of unexplained expenses under section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Judicial consistency in deciding the case.
5. Rejection of evidence and documents presented by the appellant.

Assessment of Agricultural Income:
The appeal was filed against the Appellate order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee, a Senior Citizen, derived income from various sources, including agricultural activities. The assessing officer raised concerns regarding the substantial agricultural income declared by the assessee and large cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee owned 96 bighas of land and operated agricultural activities with laborers on a sharing basis. The assessee provided evidence of land ownership, a recent civil court judgment, bills, and vouchers to support the declared income. However, the assessing officer added unexplained expenses and unaccounted sales as income, resulting in a total income determination and tax demand.

Addition of Unexplained Expenses under Section 69C:
The assessing officer added unexplained expenses under section 69C, considering the nature of agricultural income and typical expenses incurred. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal, noting the lack of evidence supporting the addition of unexplained expenses for earning agricultural income. Consequently, the addition under section 69C was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed on these grounds.

Addition of Unexplained Cash Credit under Section 68:
The Commissioner upheld the addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68, citing insufficient evidence and unaccounted sales. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the assessing officer did not consider the circumstances and evidence adequately. The appellant presented arguments based on the age factor, agricultural activities conducted with laborers, and the inability to maintain detailed sale records due to the nature of small-scale agricultural transactions. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, finding the addition under section 68 unjustified and unsustainable in law, leading to its deletion.

Judicial Consistency and Rejection of Evidence:
The appellant raised various grounds of appeal, challenging the order on procedural and substantive grounds. The Tribunal considered the evidence, including land records, judicial decisions, and documents supporting land ownership. It noted the assessing officer's lack of justification for certain additions and emphasized the difficulty faced by small-time agriculturists in maintaining detailed sale records. The Tribunal concluded that the assessing officer's disbelief in the appellant's statements and trends in the agriculture sector rendered the addition under section 68 unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee, highlighting the insufficiency of evidence and lack of justification for the additions made by the assessing officer. The Tribunal emphasized the challenges faced by small-time agriculturists in maintaining detailed records and upheld the appellant's arguments regarding the nature of agricultural activities conducted with the assistance of laborers. The Tribunal's decision resulted in the deletion of the addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68, ultimately ruling in favor of the Assessee.

← Previous Next →