2023 (10) TMI 1226 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed debit entries in the impounded books - investment in advances for properties - contention of the ld. AR in respect of non-materialization of transaction with Manas Arun Kulkarni argued that the contents therein deposed before the Executive Magistrate supports the statement of non-materialization of transaction regarding the alleged payment - HELD THAT - Since, the AO made addition taking into the said entry which was challenged before the CIT(A) except making reiteration of the statement that was made before the AO, no evidence such as the affidavit filed before the AO, also as well in the First Appellate proceedings. We see no reason for non-filing of the same before the AO and CIT(A) as rightly pointed by the ld. DR. Further, CIT(A) clearly observed vide notice that the dates and payments was specifically mentioned and as such on the dates and payments are different. Therefore, the statement made by the said Manas Arun Kulkarni before the AO is a mere statement without any evidence. No such evidence furnished before the CIT(A). It is for the first time, the assessee filed such affidavit before this Tribunal, in our opinion, is only to protract the litigation. The assessee ought to have filed the same before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings in 2016 and as well before the CIT(A) in 2017. It is pertinent to note that the said affidavit is dated 04-05-2017 is only after 4 days of passing of impugned order. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the finding of CIT(A) in the impugned order, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, ground raised by the assessee are dismissed. Agricultural income - According to the AO no complete details were furnished regarding the total sales and expenditure, but however, allowed 50% taking into account the large land holdings by the assessee - said 50% was treated as income from other sources is allowed setoff against the addition on account of undisclosed source of income - HELD THAT - AO and CIT(A) made addition in this regard on estimation basis, in our opinion, without considering the land holding and crops yielded i.e. Jowar, Cotton, Udad, Adrak, Harbhara and Banana. We note that the details filed by the assessee in written statement that the Banana crop yielded alone Rs. 75,60,000/- as gross receipt, but however, both the authorities below without considering the land holding, crops yielded, and value of crop yielded therein proceeded to make disallowance on estimation basis. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case i.e. land holding and details of crop yielded, average yield as per Government chart, rate per quintals and sale amount, we reverse the order of CIT(A) and hold that the assessee is entitled to claim allowance of entire agricultural income. Thus, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) to the income of the assessee, challenges raised by the assessee against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), and the restriction of agricultural income by the CIT(A).

Addition to Income:
The assessee, engaged in real estate and other businesses, offered additional income voluntarily during a survey. The AO added an amount to the income from undisclosed sources due to lack of proper explanation and evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed part of the addition, considering the available sources for payments made by the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's challenge, noting the lack of evidence supporting the non-materialization of a specific transaction.

Restriction of Agricultural Income:
The AO requested evidence for the claimed agricultural income, which the assessee partially provided. The AO estimated the income from other sources based on incomplete details. The CIT(A) accepted 75% of the claimed agricultural income, considering the land holdings and crops yielded. The Tribunal allowed the entire agricultural income claim, considering the land holdings, crops, and revenue details provided by the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision on agricultural income while upholding the addition to income based on available sources. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing complete and timely evidence to support income claims and transactions.