2023 (4) TMI 129 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s.69 - assessee is a farmer and deposited cash from agricultural crops sale income - D.R. submitted that the assessee has not submitted any concrete proof of earning of higher agricultural income and therefore the addition was confirmed - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that the assessee as a head of the family was holding 20 acres of land as supported by Talati Certificate alongwith his brothers. The cash received from agricultural crop sale was properly given as per the Form No. 8A, Form No. 7A and Form 12 all agricultural land ledger. All these documents were submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A). Assessee also claimed expenditure for earning agricultural income and has given the relevant receipts/bills to that effect. All these components were not taken into account by the CIT(A) and simply stated that the assessee cannot hold such a large land and cannot earn that much income. But the detail submission alongwith annexure has explained that the assessee was earning agricultural income which is exempt with the supporting documents such as copy of bills and vouchers and also agricultural receipts and expenses. Addition made by AO as well as the enhancement done by the CIT(A) was not justifiable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961
2. Reduction in agricultural income

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order confirming an addition of Rs. 7,98,500 under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee deposited Rs. 16,66,000 in cash during the financial year 2010-11 without filing a return of income. The assessee claimed the cash came from agricultural crop sale income. However, the Assessing Officer made the addition as the source of income was not adequately explained. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The appellant did not appear during the hearing. The Tribunal noted the genuine reasons for the delay in filing the appeal and condoned the delay. The Departmental Representative argued that the addition was justified due to lack of concrete proof of higher agricultural income. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee provided proper documentation, including agricultural land details and expenditure, supporting the agricultural income. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

2. The second issue involved the reduction in agricultural income from Rs. 12,00,000 to Rs. 6,67,500 without proper appreciation of the agricultural land holding details submitted. The appellant contended that sufficient details were provided, but the CIT(A) still reduced the income. Despite the absence of the appellant during the hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the submissions and documents presented to the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the appellant, as the head of the family, held 20 acres of land along with his brothers, supported by relevant certificates and ledgers. The appellant also claimed expenses for earning agricultural income and provided receipts and bills. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider these components properly and unjustly reduced the agricultural income. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, reinstating the original agricultural income figure of Rs. 12,00,000.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot allowed the appeal of the assessee, overturning the additions made under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961, and reinstating the original agricultural income figure.