2019 (12) TMI 628 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed income introduced in the form of agricultural income - gross agricultural income shown by the assessee from the agricultural operation against which the assessee has claimed expenditure - expenditure claimed by the assessee is around 4.9% - HELD THAT - CIT (A) has taken a reasonable percentage of 15% expenditure of the gross agricultural income and that too the agricultural income from agricultural operations excluding the income from sale of trees. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the prevailing conditions in the agricultural sector, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. The ld. CIT (A) has taken a reasonable view in estimating the expenditure at 15%.

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of agricultural income as undisclosed income by the ld. CIT (A).

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the treatment of agricultural income amounting to ?2,80,830/- as undisclosed income by the ld. CIT (A). The assessee, a private limited company engaged in agricultural activity, filed its return declaring total income at Nil and agricultural income of ?27,92,999/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) during the scrutiny assessment estimated the expenditure at 30% of the gross agricultural income, resulting in a total agricultural income of ?24,35,099/-. The difference of ?8,37,900/- was treated as undisclosed income. The ld. CIT (A) granted partial relief by reducing the estimated expenditure to 15%.

The assessee contended before the Tribunal that the AO's addition of ?8,37,099/- was based on miscalculation. The net agricultural income after deduction should have been ?19,55,099/-, whereas the disclosed net agricultural income was ?26,54,879/-. The assessee argued that the AO's working resulted in an excessive addition of ?1,38,120/-. The assessee emphasized that all agricultural produce was sold through Krishi Upaj Mandi, and no evidence disproving the sale vouchers was presented by the AO. The AO's estimation was based on guesswork and failed to conduct necessary inquiries. The Tribunal noted conflicting views on the working of agricultural income.

The ld. CIT (A) upheld the addition of ?2,80,830/- by considering the reasonable percentage of 15% expenditure of the gross agricultural income. The ld. CIT (A) found the assessee's claimed expenditure of around 4.9% to be unrealistic given the agricultural income declared. The ld. CIT (A) concluded that the claim of the assessee was not acceptable in the prevailing agricultural sector conditions. The Tribunal affirmed the ld. CIT (A)'s decision, dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of reasonable estimation of agricultural income and expenditure, emphasizing the need for accurate calculations and evidence in such cases.