2024 (10) TMI 241 - AT - Income Tax

Addition being the amount of agriculture income from sale of cotton - revenue submits that the assessee failed to substantiate the agriculture income by showing sufficient evidence of sale of agriculture product - Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) for the differential value of stamp duty on the purchase of agricultural lands. HELD THAT - CIT(A) on considering the submission of assessee granted partial relief on the addition of agriculture income on account of sale of vegetables Remaining addition was upheld by holding that the assessee failed to provide basic details of expenses to justify the sale of other agriculture product. On the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing officer rightly brought the difference of purchase on account of difference in stamp duty qua the share of assessee. Before us, neither the assessee has filed any submission nor any evidence, therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence or submission, therefore, we are unable to differ with the findings of ld. CIT(A), which we affirm. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of agriculture income from the sale of cotton.
2. Addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for the differential value of stamp duty on the purchase of agricultural lands.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee raised grounds challenging the addition of agriculture income and the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite multiple notices, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee during the appeal proceedings. The Senior Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate the agriculture income and the nature of the land purchased. The Assessing Officer disallowed certain expenses claimed by the assessee, leading to additions in the total income.

2. The Assessing Officer conducted a detailed assessment, including recording the assessee's statement and obtaining information from the Department of Agriculture Economics. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the claimed agriculture income and the purchase of immovable property. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claimed agriculture income and the nature of the land purchased. The Assessing Officer made additions based on his analysis, which were upheld by the lower authorities.

3. The assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and submitted online stating his total income and challenging the disallowed agriculture income and the addition related to the purchase of agricultural land. The assessee provided documents to support his claims and relied on a tribunal decision. The Commissioner granted partial relief on the addition of agriculture income from the sale of vegetables but upheld the remaining additions. The Commissioner also upheld the addition related to the purchase of agricultural land, stating that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence.

4. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the findings of the Commissioner, noting the absence of submissions or evidence from the assessee. As a result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal. The decision was announced in open court on 24th September 2024.