2023 (8) TMI 383 - AT - Income Tax

Correct head of income - addition being agricultural income treated as other income - HELD THAT - AO neither consider extent of land held by the assessee nor certification of the VAO who is competent authority to certify the agricultural activities carried out by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) are erred in not appreciating the fact while disallowing the claim of agricultural income. At the same time, the assessee also could not file credible evidence to justify the claim of agricultural income. Even if you go by the claim of the assessee, income declared under agricultural operations is not commensurate with extent of land held by the assessee and agricultural operations carried out during relevant assessment year. As both the parties failed to make out their case with necessary evidences and reasons,nly option left with us is to settle the dispute between the assessee and the AO by estimating income from agricultural operations. Therefore, considering the extent of land held by the assessee and also certificate issued by the VAO, we direct the AO to allow 50% of agricultural income claimed by the assessee for three assessment years - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the assessment of agricultural income treated as other income for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2001-02, and the failure to provide necessary evidence to support the claim of agricultural income.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Addition of Agricultural Income as Other Income
The assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- as agricultural income treated as other income. The appellant argued that additional evidence was submitted, including adangal and VAO certificates, to support the earning of agricultural income. The appellant contended that the assessing officer failed to consider this evidence despite directions from the High Court and ITAT. The Tribunal noted that the appellant owns agricultural lands and derived income from them. It was observed that the assessing officer did not justify disallowing the agricultural income, especially when the original assessment was set aside by the ITAT. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow 50% of the agricultural income claimed by the assessee for the three assessment years, providing partial relief.

Issue 2: Failure to Provide Necessary Evidence
The assessee, a HUF of a former Minister, had a search conducted under the Income Tax Act, resulting in an order disallowing the claim of agricultural income. The AO made additions towards disallowance of agricultural income as the assessee failed to provide necessary evidence to support the claim. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee did not appear or provide details during the hearing. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not seriously pursue the appeal before the lower authorities. While the appellant claimed to have agricultural land and carried out operations, they failed to provide sufficient evidence. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow 50% of the agricultural income claimed by the assessee, as the parties failed to substantiate their cases with necessary evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals filed by the assessee for the three assessment years, directing the AO to allow 50% of the agricultural income claimed. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing credible evidence to support claims and emphasized the need for parties to substantiate their cases with necessary evidence and reasons.