2021 (4) TMI 1050 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - bringing to tax the gross agricultural income declared by the assessee as income from other sources - HELD THAT - As assessee is allegedly studying at that point of time and his father is an Architect. Therefore, the assessee s contention that year after year he has been misguided by a person i.e. Mr. Raja Rao, an ITP, to file his returns of income declaring agricultural income on the basis of false documents cannot be accepted. Further, the assessee has not taken any action against the said person. The returns of income were not filed all together at one point of time but were filed year after year. Therefore, the bonafides of the assessee are not proved and since the assessee himself has declared the income, as satisfied that the Assessing Officer after being satisfied that the assessee had no agricultural income, had no option but to treat it as income from other sources and bring it to tax. Therefore, the assessee s grounds of appeal on this issue are rejected. CIT (A) had called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer reported that the assessee had received residential house as a gift from his father and that the assessee is in receipt of rental income. Taking the same into consideration only, the CIT (A) has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, and the assessee is second appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee could not submit any evidence before me to contradict this finding of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A). Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the AO for the A.Ys 2011-12 and accordingly it is rejected. Further, for the A.Y 2011-12 to 2014-15 another issue emanating from the assessment orders is that the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings perused the P L a/c of the assessee and noticed that the assessee has admitted income from business or profession. In connection with the expenditure claim, the assessee was asked to produce the bills and vouchers, but the assessee could not produce any evidence and therefore, the AO disallowed some of the expenditure and brought it to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), but could not produce any evidence before the CIT (A). Therefore, the CIT (A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal Agricultural income declared by the assessee which has been brought to tax by the Assessing Officer as income from other sources as was done in the case of Sri Talluri Vijay Rahul. In the case of this assessee also, the assessee did not own any agricultural land but has shown agricultural income claiming that she owns agricultural land of 13.22 guntas situated at Bodanampadu, Kurichedu Mandal, Prakasham District, and as evidence thereof Patta Pass Book No.332 was filed. Similar evidence as in the case of Shri Talluri Vijay Rahul was also filed in the case of the assessee herein and similar enquiry by the Assessing Officer revealed that the assessee did not own any agricultural land and that the was not in the name of Sri Talluri Venkata Narayanamma. Since the facts and circumstances in the assessee s case are the same as in the case of Talluri Vijay Rahul, for the detailed reasons given above, the appeals of this assessee for the relevant A.Ys are also dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of agricultural income declared by the assessees.
2. Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition of income from other sources.
4. Disallowance of expenditure claims.
5. Municipal taxes paid and their allowance in computing income from house property.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Agricultural Income Declared by the Assessees:
The primary issue was whether the agricultural income declared by the assessees, Sri Talluri Vijay Rahul and Smt. Talluri Venkata Narayanamma, was genuine. Both assessees claimed agricultural income from lands allegedly owned by them. However, upon verification, it was found that the lands did not belong to them. The Tehsildar and the company M/s. Terra Firms Projects (P) Ltd confirmed that the documents provided by the assessees were not genuine. Consequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated the declared agricultural income as "income from other sources" and brought it to tax. The Tribunal upheld this decision, rejecting the assessees' grounds of appeal.

2. Reassessment Proceedings under Section 147:
For the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the AO reopened the assessments under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act after discovering that the assessees did not own any agricultural lands. The assessees argued that they were misguided by an Income Tax Practitioner (ITP) to declare agricultural income to obtain educational loans. However, the Tribunal found that the assessees' claims lacked evidence and upheld the reassessment proceedings.

3. Addition of Income from Other Sources:
The AO added the declared agricultural income as "income from other sources" due to the lack of ownership of agricultural lands. Additionally, for the assessment year 2011-12, the AO included income from house property and profits and gains from business or profession, which the assessee had initially declared but later omitted in response to the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal confirmed these additions, finding no reason to interfere with the AO's and CIT (A)'s findings.

4. Disallowance of Expenditure Claims:
For the assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15, the AO disallowed some expenditure claims due to the assessees' failure to produce supporting bills and vouchers. The CIT (A) and the Tribunal upheld these disallowances as the assessees could not provide any evidence to substantiate their claims.

5. Municipal Taxes Paid and Their Allowance in Computing Income from House Property:
For the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee claimed that municipal taxes paid should be allowed while computing income from house property. The Tribunal remanded this issue to the AO for verification and directed that the taxes be allowed if found to have been paid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2013-14, while the appeal for the assessment year 2014-15 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. The appeals filed by Smt. Talluri Venkata Narayanamma were also dismissed, as the facts and circumstances were identical to those in the case of Sri Talluri Vijay Rahul.