9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 235 - AT - Income TaxAddition for bogus agriculture income - proof of agriculture activities in the farmland - CIT(A) estimated the agriculture income @ 40,000/- per acre and assessed the total agriculture income of ₹ 20,00,000/- - assessee being 50% share holder, therefore, the assessee was allowed relief of ₹ 10,00,000/- and remaining amount was confirmed - HELD THAT - The assessee brought on record that during the relevant period more than 3600 fruit bearing trees were in the farmland. The assessee also furnished the photographs of farmland along with the survey report showing various type of trees, details of which were furnished by CIT(A). No comment on those documentary evidence were made in the impugned order. Moreover, in the report of Inspector dated 05.12.2016 agriculture activities in the farmland was accepted. The ld. CIT(A) not accepted the agriculture income of ₹ 77,347/- per acre per annum by holding it on higher side. CIT(A) estimated agriculture income @ ₹ 40,000/- per acre p.a. CIT(A) has not given any basis for estimating such agriculture income. The estimation made by ld. CIT(A) is on the lower side. The assessee has claimed yield of cash crop. In our view the estimation of agriculture income @ ₹ 50,000/- per acre per annum would meet the end of justice. Thus, the assessee s share being 50% would be ₹ 12,50,000/-. Therefore, the assessee is granted a partial relief of ₹ 2,50,000/-, in addition to the relief granted by ld. CIT(A). In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are partly allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Estimation of agricultural income. 2. Treatment of agricultural income as bogus. 3. Partial relief granted by CIT(A). 4. Consistency in the treatment of agricultural income across different assessment years. Detailed Analysis: 1. Estimation of Agricultural Income: The primary issue revolves around the estimation of agricultural income by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessee declared an agricultural income of ?19,33,670 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, which the CIT(A) estimated at ?40,000 per acre per annum, leading to a total of ?10,00,000 for the assessee's 50% share in 50 acres of land. The CIT(A) thus confirmed an addition of ?9,33,670 to the total income of the appellant. 2. Treatment of Agricultural Income as Bogus: The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the entire agricultural income of ?19,33,670 as bogus. This conclusion was based on an Inspector’s report, which indicated that the farm trees were dried up and there was no substantial agricultural activity. Additionally, the AO noted the absence of verifiable documents such as signed sale receipts and self-made vouchers, leading to the rejection of the agricultural income claim. 3. Partial Relief Granted by CIT(A): Upon appeal, the CIT(A) granted partial relief by estimating the agricultural income at ?40,000 per acre, thus allowing ?10,00,000 for the assessee's share and confirming the remaining ?9,33,670 as an addition. The CIT(A) based this decision on the observation that the net agricultural income of ?77,347 per acre appeared unsubstantiated and high. 4. Consistency in Treatment Across Assessment Years: The assessee argued for consistency, highlighting that similar income figures were accepted in previous years (AY 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13) and for the joint owner (mother) of the same land. The Tribunal noted that the revenue had accepted agricultural income figures in preceding years and for the joint owner without dispute. Tribunal's Findings: - The Tribunal acknowledged the documentary evidence provided by the assessee, including survey reports, 7/12 extracts, Gram Panchayat certificates, insurance policies, and Google Map printouts, which were not disputed. - The Tribunal noted the inconsistency in the AO’s approach, as a subsequent Inspector’s report for AY 2014-15 confirmed agricultural activities on the farm. - The Tribunal found the CIT(A)’s estimation of ?40,000 per acre to be on the lower side and revised it to ?50,000 per acre per annum. Consequently, the assessee’s share was adjusted to ?12,50,000, granting a partial relief of ?2,50,000 in addition to the relief by CIT(A). Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for both AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15, directing a consistent approach in estimating agricultural income at ?50,000 per acre per annum, thus providing additional relief to the assessee. The order emphasized the need for consistency and proper substantiation of claims, while also recognizing the documentary evidence provided by the assessee.
|
