2019 (9) TMI 403 - AT - Income Tax

Agricultural income - according to the D.R., the adangal extract was not filed before the AO to establish the cultivation - HELD THAT - The assessee could not file any material before this Tribunal to substantiate the claim of cultivation of banana and crops as claimed before the AO. State Revenue authorities are maintaining the cultivation account. In fact, the Village Administrative Officer is keeping the adangal, which is otherwise known as Village Account No.2, with respect to cultivation. The adangal extract as received from the Revenue authorities by the Assessing Officer discloses no such cultivation of banana as claimed by the assessee. Inspite of these materials, AO was fair enough to disallow only ₹ 10 lakhs. Moreover, the assessee himself has also admitted before the Assessing Officer that ₹ 10 lakhs was not part of agricultural income. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of agricultural income claimed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Coimbatore, regarding the assessment year 2013-14. The appeal was adjourned multiple times at the request of the assessee, but on the hearing date of 03.07.2019, no one appeared for the assessee. Consequently, the Ld. Departmental Representative presented the case, focusing on the claim of agricultural income amounting to ?27,74,849 made by the assessee. The representative highlighted discrepancies in the details provided by the assessee, pointing out that the adangal extract, crucial for establishing cultivation, was not submitted. The Assessing Officer, upon investigation, found inconsistencies in the claimed cultivation of banana and other crops, leading to a conclusion that the entire income was not derived from agriculture. Notably, the Assessing Officer also noted that ?10 lakhs of the total income was not related to agricultural activities, which was acknowledged by the assessee himself.

Upon examination of the material available and the submissions made by the Ld. Departmental Representative, the Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to support the cultivation claims made during the assessment. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of the adangal extract, maintained by the State Revenue authorities, in verifying agricultural activities. The absence of evidence to corroborate the cultivation of banana and other crops, as asserted by the assessee, led to the confirmation of the Assessing Officer's decision to disallow ?10 lakhs from the total income. The Tribunal acknowledged the fairness of the Assessing Officer in only disallowing a portion of the claimed income, considering the discrepancies found. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authority, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the order of the lower authority, as the evidence presented by the assessee was insufficient to substantiate the agricultural income claimed. The dismissal of the appeal signified the confirmation of the Assessing Officer's decision to disallow a portion of the income, based on discrepancies identified during the assessment process.