2023 (11) TMI 984 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - Agricultural income - As per CIT AO accepted the claim of the assessee that his agricultural income for the relevant financial year despite there was no supporting materials/ documents before him about the earning as income from agriculture - HELD THAT - AO did not sought any evidence from the assessee on the claimed income as agricultural income. Land revenue records as was submitted by the assessee cannot be the proof of earning from the agricultural activities during the relevant assessment year although there might be some agricultural income from that agricultural land. But examining only the revenue documents as submitted by the assessee it cannot be said that there was an income to the assessee during that relevant assessment year. By furnishing the land revenue record, the assessee has only proved that the land is an agricultural land. The assessee in order to prove the agricultural income had to furnish evidence regarding sale of agricultural products which was ignored by the Ld. AO. Hence, we agree to the finding of the learned PCIT that the ld. AO did not make any enquiry on the agricultural income as was claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, we decide this ground of appeal against the assessee. Sundry Creditors the assessee only disclosed the name and relation of Mr. Ragul who is one of the sundry creditors. No PAN, confirmation letters, address of the creditors, their creditworthiness were insisted / obtained by the ld. AO during the assessment proceeding. As the assessee borrowed money from some of the persons, the Ld. AO ought to enquire about the creditworthiness of the creditors. He ought to see whether the creditors confirm the credits given by them to the assessee. No such exercise was done by the Ld. AO. PCIT has rightly observed that the Ld. AO had to obtain the PAN, confirmation letters, addresses, creditworthiness of the sundry creditors before completion of the assessment. Accordingly, we decide this ground also against the assessee. Depreciation on the machineries assessee explained that the same is the opening written down value and he had produced all the bills with ledger account copy to the Income Tax Officer for the assessment year 2014-15 during an enquiry. Therefore, we reject the observation of the PCIT that the AO did not verify the details of machineries. As a result, we decide this ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for Assessment Year 2015-16, raising grounds related to illegality, jurisdiction, natural justice, and specific issues regarding sundry creditors, machinery purchase, agricultural income, and assessment proceedings.

Sundry Creditors Issue:
The appellant contended that certain sundry creditors were old balances from running accounts, with specific amounts linked to different units and a portion offered under the Income Declaration Scheme. The appellant provided details on the creditors and their settlements over successive years.

Machinery Purchase Issue:
The appellant argued that machinery worth Rs. 10 crores was purchased in the previous year and reflected as the opening written down value in the current year, thus falling outside the scope of verification for the current assessment year.

Agricultural Income Issue:
The appellant claimed agricultural income based on land holdings, supported by documents from the Revenue Department. However, the Principal Commissioner noted a lack of evidence such as sales bills, ledger accounts, and expenses details to substantiate the claimed agricultural income, leading to a dispute over the assessment.

Revision Proceedings Issue:
The Principal Commissioner initiated revision proceedings under section 263, citing failures by the Assessing Officer to verify sundry creditors' details, machinery utilization, and agricultural income receipts. The appellant argued that the assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests.

Judgment Summary:
The Tribunal considered the appellant's submissions on agricultural income, sundry creditors, and machinery depreciation. It found that while the evidence for agricultural income was insufficient to support the claimed amount, the Assessing Officer had neglected to verify sundry creditors' creditworthiness. However, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's explanation regarding machinery details, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.