9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1226 - AT - Income TaxAddition as income from other sources - assessee has claimed agricultural income - HELD THAT - Assessee has produced a lease agreement between the assessee and one Shri Ravi Kumar - Though the lease agreement is dated 18.11.1995 in the past years assessee has not brought the same to the notice of the AO. Assessee has not produced any proof to show what was the agricultural activities carried on by the lessee to have provided the assessee. There is no evidence submitted by the assessee that he was in receipt of huge agricultural income of Rs.60,00,000/- from 19.72 acres (assessee share 50% of 39.44 acres). AO was justified in limiting the agricultural income to Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. The order of the CIT(A) confirming the AO s order is upheld as valid and in accordance with law. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Issues involved:
The solitary issue in this case was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.40,28,000/- as income from 'other sources'. Details of the judgment: The case involved an individual assessee for the assessment year 2014-15, where the assessee claimed agricultural income of Rs.60,00,000/- from 19.72 acres. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) found the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the agricultural income to be insufficient and not creditworthy. The AO estimated the agricultural income at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, resulting in the addition of Rs.40,28,000/- as income from 'other sources'. The first appellate authority, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), upheld the AO's decision, stating that the agreement produced by the assessee was not creditworthy. The CIT(A) pointed out discrepancies in the records and held that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim of earning Rs.60,00,000/- from 19.72 acres of land. Subsequently, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal, submitting a detailed paper book with relevant documents. The arguments presented included a request to increase the estimated income per acre. After considering the contentions from both sides, the Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence to support the claim of earning Rs.60,00,000/- from agricultural activities. The Tribunal noted the lack of historical evidence and the absence of proof regarding the agricultural activities conducted on the land. Thus, the Tribunal agreed with the AO's estimation of agricultural income at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and concluded that the addition of Rs.40,28,000/- as income from 'other sources' was valid and in accordance with the law. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
