2020 (4) TMI 557 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment of agricultural income under the head 'income from other sources' - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2016 (10) TMI 1306 - ITAT CHENNAI we allow 75% of the income declared by assessee as agricultural income , by relying on the decision of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT 1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT in order to maintain consistency. We note that learned CIT(A) accepted agriculture income from said lands held by assessee to the tune of ₹ 10,000/- per acre for impugned ay and Revenue has neither filed any appeal nor filed any cross objections against the said decision of learned CIT(A) accepting agricultural income partially from said land to the tune of ₹ 10,000/- per acre. Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of agricultural income under 'income from other sources' | Proper justification for restricting agricultural income claim | Opportunity for natural justice before passing order | Consistency in allowing agricultural income

Assessment of Agricultural Income under 'Income from Other Sources':
The appeal was against the appellate order dated 13.02.2017, which partly sustained the assessment of agricultural income under 'income from other sources' without proper reasons. The assessee, engaged in real estate, declared agricultural income of ?10,20,708, which the AO treated as income from unexplained sources. The AO rejected the claim as agricultural income due to lack of details on crop yield and sales proceeds. The CIT(A) allowed ?2,10,000 as agricultural income, considering the ownership of land, but treated the balance as unexplained income. The Tribunal, following a previous case, allowed 75% of the declared income as agricultural income, maintaining consistency.

Proper Justification for Restricting Agricultural Income Claim:
The CIT(A) restricted the agricultural income claim based on incomplete details of agricultural operations and lack of expenditure proof. The Tribunal, in a similar case for the assessment year 2009-10, held that once land ownership is proven, presuming no agricultural income was unfair. The Tribunal allowed 75% of the declared income as agricultural income, emphasizing the need for complete details to justify the income claim. The decision aimed to balance the allowance of agricultural income with the lack of evidence for the entire claimed amount.

Opportunity for Natural Justice Before Passing Order:
The appellant raised concerns about the lack of proper opportunity before the impugned order was passed, emphasizing the importance of natural justice principles. However, the Tribunal's decision focused on the substantive issue of agricultural income assessment rather than procedural aspects, ultimately allowing 75% of the declared income as agricultural income based on evidence and consistency with previous judgments.

Consistency in Allowing Agricultural Income:
The Tribunal's decision to allow 75% of the declared agricultural income, based on ownership of land and previous case precedents, aimed to maintain consistency in assessing agricultural income claims. By following established legal principles and considering the evidence presented, the Tribunal ensured a fair and consistent approach to determining the taxable income from agricultural activities.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed in the case, including the assessment of agricultural income, justification for restricting the claim, considerations of natural justice, and the importance of consistency in decision-making.