9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ITA No.333/SRT/2019, for AY 2014- 15, wherein the grounds raised by the assessee are as follows:- "1. On facts and circumstances of the case as also law on subject, the learned AO as well as CIT(A) has erred in making addition of agricultural expense on presumptive basis. Hence, requires to be deleted." 4.The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee, before us is an individual and shown in the return of income, the income from 'other sources and income from agriculture proceeds'. During the course of assessment proceedings, on verification of return of income, it was noticed by AO that assessee has shown agriculture income of Rs. 22,09,020/- for rate purpose in his return of income filed for the AY 2014-15. Therefore, the assessee was asked to furnish the details and proof of agriculture income and expenditure account alongwith supporting bills / vouchers and also asked to furnish copy of 7/12 and 8A of the agricultural land. In response to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has furnished copy of 7/12 and 8A of the agricultural land and copy of bank account but not furnished any evidences of agricultural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 334/- received from Gandevi Sugar, on which expenses should be calculated @ 40% of Rs. 15,04,334/- which comes to Rs. 6,10,733/- and the balance which comes to Rs. 9,02,601/- should not be treated your only agriculture income for the year under consideration. 4. You are requested to furnish your explanation in writing and duly verified in prescribed manner at 4.04 PM. On 10.11.2016. 5. It may kindly be noted that this is a last and final opportunity. In no case an adjournment will be granted on any ground as sufficient opportunity has already been given. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act will also be initiated for noncompliance of statutory notices, which may please be noted." 5. In response, the assessee has neither attended nor furnished any details in this regard. Thus, it appeared to AO that assessee has nothing to explain the agriculture income and expenditure account alongwith supporting bills / voucher. The AO considered the income of Rs. 7,04,686/- as unexplained investment and in absence of income and expenditure account for agriculture produce during the year under consideration, it was very difficult to estimate the expenses. Therefore on estimation b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee has challenged the addition of Rs. 13,06,419/- made on account of unexplained investment of Rs. 7,04,686/- and estimation of agriculture expenses @ 40% of total agriculture income of Rs. 15,04,334/- i.e. Rs. 6,01,733/-. During appellate proceedings, AR of the assessee submitted details of Rs. 6,94,016/- out of unexplained investment of Rs. 7,04,686/- made by the AO as an additional evidence and requested to consider under rule 46A of the IT Act. Considering the assessee's request, AO was directed to verify the same and submit remand report. AO vide his letter dated 25.07.2018 submitted remand report as under:- 'Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to briefly mention the facts of the instant case. This case was selected for scrutiny though CASS for verification of Large Agriculture income of Rs. 22,09,020/-. During assessment proceedings the assessee ((his legal heir) was asked to furnish the details and proof of agriculture income and expenditure account alongwith supporting bills/vouchers and was also asked to furnish copy of 7/12 & 8A of the agriculture land. In response to this, the assessee just submitted a copy of his bank account, a copy of 7/12 & 8A of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce regarding agriculture expenses, type of crops grown on his/her field, production thereof, bills/vouchers obtained during sale transaction of the agriculture produce. The assessee was specifically asked to show cause why in the absence of bills etc. and in absence of details of expenses the addition should not be made. In the assessment order itself, it is mentioned by the then AO that the assessee did not produce any bills/vouchers, details of income and expenses or any evidence to justify the huge agriculture income and therefore he adopted estimation method to compute the expenses incurred in getting agriculture income. 5. In the light of this factual position, it is clearly visible that the contention of the assessee is not supported by facts and actually contradicts the factual position. It also needs to be mentioned here that even after giving ample opportunities, the assessee willingly not submitted any evidence to substantiate his/her claims and now the assessee is just trying to fabricate the story in order to avoid to pay his due taxes. 6. The so claimed only remaining evidence i.e. a ledger copy from Adinath Traders was actually only and first copy of "claimed evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , these facts are not mentioned by the AO in the remand report and only when assessment record was called from the AO, this reply could be noticed by the undersigned. To this extent, the AO has tried to hide the enquiry result in remand proceeding which is entirely against the spirit in which the remand proceedings and reports are required from the AO. Considering the above, the claim for agriculture income cannot be rejected outrightly neither any other evidence were brought forth by the AO to show that the assessee had income from other than agriculture. Even in assessment order, AO had accepted the agriculture income to the tune of Rs. 15,04,334/- and disallowed 40% of agricultural income towards unexplained agricultural expenses. In such circumstances, it would be proper and just to follow the decisions of various ITAT benches including the decision of jurisdiction ITAT Ahmedabad bench in the case of Dhirubhai N. Narola, (ITA 2190TO 2192/AHD/2004) wherein the Hon'ble bench had allowed only 60% of the agriculture income shown in the ROI towards earning from agriculture and balance 40% was disallowed as incurred towards agriculture expenses. In another decision of ITAT Ahmeda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that how and why assessee has filed revised return, wherein he has shown less agricultural income. How the agricultural income has reduced, was not explained by the assessee therefore addition sustained by Ld. CIT(A) may be affirmed. 12. We note that assessee is blowing hot and cold. The assessee as per his own wish showing more agricultural income and when assessee is caught by income tax authorities, then showing less agricultural income! If someone blows hot and cold, they keep changing their attitude towards something, sometimes being very enthusiastic and at other times expressing no interest at all. The assessee under consideration has not explained with cogent evidence that how and why he has reduced agricultural income. We note that in the appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated that affidavits filed before the AO to claim reduced agriculture income of Rs. 7,81,363/-only as against Rs. 31,42,190/- shown in the ROI filed on 27.03.2016. From the assessment order, it is apparent that the assessee had filed affidavit at the fag end of assessment proceedings as the assessment order is dated 20.09.2017 and the affidavit dated 20.09.2017 appear to be have been filed on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulture income but the quantum of agriculture receipts, expenses claims and net agriculture income are not supported by any proper and verifiable documentary evidences. In such circumstances, ld CIT(A) observed that there are various decisions of Hon'ble ITAT Benches and courts whereby disallowance in the range of 30% to 40% of the net agriculture income shown in the return of income was considered fair and reasonable. Accordingly, net agriculture income of Rs. 31,42,190/- was reduced by Rs. 9,42,657/-(30% of Rs. 31,42,190/-) to account for agriculture expenses. Hence, ld CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs. 25,03,302/-, to Rs. 9,42,657/- (30% of Rs. 31,42,190/-), only. Therefore, we note that a reasonable relief has already been provided by the ld CIT(A). Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A). The conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order of the CIT(A). Hence, these appeals deserve to be dismissed by upholding the orders passed by the CIT(A) and they are dismissed. 14. In the result, both appeals filed by assessee are dismissed. A copy of the instant common order b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
