2015 (9) TMI 1053 - HC - Income Tax

Agriculture income - whether can be treated as income from other sources when there is no evidence of income from other sources? - Whether Tribunal is justified in rejecting evidence of agriculture land owned by father of the appellant? - Held that - The assessee has declared agricultural income of ₹ 32 lacs and admitted before Assessing Officer that assessee and his brother and mother are also having agricultural land and their total income is around ₹ 10 lacs to ₹ 12 lacs approximately and the share of the assessee comes to ₹ 3 lacs p.a. It would,therefore, show that whatever agricultural income was established in the return of income, was not earned out of agricultural operation and was thus rightly considered by the authorities below to be income from other sources. The onus upon assessee to prove earning of the agricultural income was thus not substantiated through any evidence on record. Even before learned CIT(Appeals), the assessee failed to substantiate regarding earning of the agricultural income. Therefore, authorities below were justified in rejecting the claim of assessee of earning agricultural income. The assessee never pleaded before authorities below earning of any agricultural income by his father. The assessee on one hand pleaded before the authorities below earning of the lesser agricultural income and has now taken a contrary stand to accept the agricultural income declared in the return of income by claiming that father of the assessee also earned agricultural income. This fact is pleaded for the first time before the Tribunal and thus cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, whatever photo copies of some land holding have been filed in the paper book, cannot be taken into consideration. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the absence of any evidence on record in favour of the assessee, we do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of declared agriculture income as income from other sources.
2. Rejection of evidence of agriculture land ownership.
3. Perversity and contradiction in the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the treatment of agriculture income as income from other sources. The appellant's family relied solely on agriculture income. The appellant disclosed agriculture income of Rs. 32 lacs for the assessment year 2009-10, along with income from business and profession. The Assessing Officer concluded that only Rs. 8,96,000 was agriculture income, while the rest was categorized as income from other sources due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) and Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing the absence of proof that the declared agriculture income was earned through agricultural operations or for immigration purposes.

2. The appellant contended that evidence of agriculture land owned by family members was rejected unjustly. The Assessing Officer considered only a portion of the reported agriculture income as genuine, leading to the dispute. The appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to support the claimed agriculture income. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's varying statements regarding agricultural income, including introducing the father's earnings at a later stage, were inconsistent and lacked credibility. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant failed to substantiate the agricultural income's origin and purpose.

3. The appellant's counsel argued for allowing additional evidence to prove the nature of the added amount as agricultural income. However, all three authorities - the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and Tribunal - unanimously found that the declared agriculture income was not adequately supported by evidence and was rightly treated as income from other sources. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of proof of agricultural income generation and rejected the appellant's belated claim regarding the father's earnings. The appellant failed to demonstrate any legal errors or inconsistencies in the authorities' decisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as no substantial questions of law were identified, and the concurrent findings were deemed valid and justified.