9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 742 - AT - Income TaxDetermination of agricultural income - difference in admitted agricultural income as compared to net agricultural income - addition u/s 69 for difference in agriculture income shown - Since the assessee has offered the large amount of agricultural income in the return of income the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the source of agricultural income HELD THAT - As it is very much clear that the assessee filed an affidavit dated 15.02.2018 and order is passed on 11.11.2018. The ld. CIT(A) or that of the AO did not discuss this aspect of the facts declared by the assessee in an affidavit. Even the ld. AO though the ld. DR at the time of hearing of this appeal did not dispute the content of the affidavit dated 15.02.2018 wherein the assessee claimed that he has only source of agricultural activity and he has not invested or expended the alleged amount. Since this fact is not being disputed and the assessee was never cross examined by the A.O. Therefore, the averments contained in duly sworn affidavit are to be accepted as a correct unless the same are rebutted by the evidence. On this proposition, we found support from the decision of Mehta Parikh Company 1956 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT , Dr. Prakash Rathi 2005 (10) TMI 252 - ITAT JODHPUR , Labh Chand Bohra 2008 (4) TMI 731 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT , Shrikumar 2008 (4) TMI 731 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT and Union of India Vs Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation 1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT Thus, we are of the considered view that the addition made by the ld. AO in the case of the assessee is directed to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Justification of the assessment of total income. 3. Assumption of differential agricultural income as income chargeable to tax. 4. Addition of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs under section 69. 5. Justification of interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The Bench observed a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee's representative explained that the delay was due to the physical appeal documents being returned undelivered by the courier agency. The Bench noted that the delay was justified as the documents were initially sent on time but were returned, and the appeal was subsequently filed online. The delay was condoned in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC), as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. 2. Justification of the Assessment of Total Income: The assessee declared an income of Rs. 2.25 Lakhs from the sale of milk and Rs. 25.50 Lakhs as agricultural income. The case was selected for scrutiny due to the large agricultural income declared. The assessee claimed that the large agricultural income was due to an innocent mistake, where the gross amount was reported instead of the net income. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the assessment, noting that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the expenses incurred or the lands taken on Theka/Batai. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation was plausible and that the affidavit provided by the assessee was not rebutted by the AO. 3. Assumption of Differential Agricultural Income as Income Chargeable to Tax: The AO assumed the differential amount of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs as income from other sources, chargeable to tax under section 69. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld this finding, stating that the assessee did not provide evidence for the agricultural expenses or lands taken on Theka/Batai. The Tribunal, however, noted that the affidavit provided by the assessee, stating that he had no other source of income except agriculture, was not disputed or cross-examined by the AO. The Tribunal held that the affidavit should be accepted as correct unless rebutted by evidence. 4. Addition of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs under Section 69: The AO made an addition of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs under section 69, assuming it to be income from other sources. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld this addition. The Tribunal found that the addition was based on hypothetical assumptions without cogent material evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's affidavit, which declared no investment or expenditure of the alleged amount, was not rebutted by the AO. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition, citing various judicial precedents supporting the acceptance of uncontroverted affidavits. 5. Justification of Interest Charged under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C: The assessee challenged the interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The Tribunal did not specifically adjudicate this ground, as it was consequential to the main issue of the addition under section 69. Since the addition was deleted, the interest charged under these sections would also be impacted accordingly. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs made by the AO. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, and the interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not specifically adjudicated as it was consequential to the main issue. The appeal was pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.
|
