2012 (10) TMI 669 - AT - Income Tax

Unaccounted agriculture income - sales to be accounted in the hands of AOP or partners of the assessee firm ? - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The undisputed fact is that the members of the so called AOP (M/s NF Farms) and the partners of the assessee firm are the same persons. There is a categorical finding in the assessment order that the agricultural income of Rs.86,30,344/- is practically not possible to be grown out of 17.64 acres of land. The claim of AOP and also of the assessee is that the agricultural produce (babycorn) were sold to hotels, restaurants and dhabas. However, no evidence in any manner of such sale was produced at any stage as nothing prevented the assessee to produce the proof of such sales at any stage as it is not the case that cash sale was made to the passerby or the persons who are going here and there on the roads rather the sale was made to hotels, restaurants and dhabas. Though CIT(A) agreed with view of the AO that the source of loan from M/s NF Farms is not genuine, however, deleted the addition by opining that the addition, if any, can be made in the hands of the AOP which is not possible as the ultimate beneficiaries of this colourable device is the assessee itself as the members of the AOP and the partners of the assessee firm are the same persons. Thus remand this appeal to the file of the AO to examine the respective claims of AOP and also of the assessee - in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Genuineness of the loan from M/s NF Farms.
2. Verification of cash sales and agricultural income claimed by NF Farms.
3. Classification of agricultural income as business income.
4. Addition of Rs. 50 lakhs as unsecured loans in the hands of the assessee firm.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Genuineness of the Loan from M/s NF Farms:
The Revenue contended that the loan of Rs. 50 lakhs obtained from M/s NF Farms by the assessee firm is not genuine. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that the members of the AOP (M/s NF Farms) and the partners of the assessee firm were the same individuals. The AO questioned the genuineness and source of the unsecured loans and asked the assessee to furnish details. The assessee claimed the loan was genuine, supported by cash sales of baby corn deposited in the bank account. However, the AO found the agricultural income claimed by NF Farms to be questionable.

2. Verification of Cash Sales and Agricultural Income Claimed by NF Farms:
The AO doubted the cultivation of four crops in a year and the genuineness of the agricultural produce. The assessee could not provide names and addresses of parties to whom sales were made, only stating that sales were made to hotels, restaurants, and dhabas. The AO found the profit margins (approximately 98%) alarmingly high and practically impossible. The CIT(A) also noted the difficulty in generating over Rs. 80 lakhs from 17.64 acres of land with a nominal investment of Rs. 4,36,246/-. The CIT(A) agreed with the AO that the source of loan from M/s NF Farms was not genuine but opined that any addition should be made in the hands of the AOP members.

3. Classification of Agricultural Income as Business Income:
The AO suggested that the agricultural income of NF Farms should be considered as business income due to the nature of receipts and non-verification of sales. The CIT(A) also observed that the huge abnormal agricultural income claimed by NF Farms was not acceptable and directed detailed investigations into the members of the AOP.

4. Addition of Rs. 50 Lakhs as Unsecured Loans in the Hands of the Assessee Firm:
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs in the hands of the assessee firm, suggesting that any addition should be made in the hands of the AOP members. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this proposition, stating that the ultimate beneficiaries were the assessee firm itself. The Tribunal remanded the case to the AO to examine the respective claims of M/s NF Farms and the assessee, and to decide in accordance with the law after considering the ground realities.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, and the case was remanded to the AO for further examination and decision in accordance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized the need for due opportunity of being heard to be provided to the assessee.

← Previous Next →