2018 (11) TMI 1422 - AT - Income Tax

Addition treating the agricultural income as income from other sources - D.R. contended that assessee did not produce the Landlord for verification of the facts as well as did not produce documentary evidences to prove earning of agricultural income - Held that - In the absence of any evidence on record and the fact that assessee did not avail any opportunity at the remand proceedings at the appellate stage would clearly disentitle the assessee to claim benefit of agricultural income. Considering the above facts and in the absence of any representation and any evidence on record, no interference is called for in the matter. Confirm the Order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of agricultural income as income from other sources.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2013-2014. The case involved the addition of ?16,88,000 to the income of the assessee, treating the agricultural income as income from other sources. The AO had accepted only ?4,80,000 of agricultural income and added the remaining amount to the assessee's income. The assessee provided various documents to support the agricultural income, including agreements and statements. However, during the proceedings, the AO reported that the assessee failed to produce key persons for verification and did not submit documentary evidence regarding lease money paid. The Ld. CIT(A) noted the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee and confirmed the addition, stating that the claim of agricultural income remained unverified and unsubstantiated due to lack of evidence.

The AO's remand report highlighted the assessee's failure to produce necessary persons for verification, leading to unverified agricultural proceeds. Despite opportunities, the assessee did not provide documentary evidence regarding lease payments. The AO explained that the statement of a key person was recorded to verify facts related to agricultural land lease, indicating the lack of cooperation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized the importance of producing relevant individuals for examination and providing documentary evidence. Due to the non-cooperative stance of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition of ?16,88,000 as income from other sources, as the claim of agricultural income remained unsupported.

During the hearing, the assessee did not appear, and the Ld. D.R. argued that the lack of evidence and non-cooperation of the assessee disentitled her from claiming agricultural income benefits. The absence of any representation or evidence led to the confirmation of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal, considering the facts and absence of evidence, upheld the dismissal of the appeal, confirming the addition of ?16,88,000 as income from other sources. The decision was made based on the lack of cooperation and evidence from the assessee, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.