9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 7,81,363/-only as against ₹ 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 the same date. This fact clearly indicates that the assessee was not in a position to explain the agriculture income and as an afterthought, the affidavit could have been filed in response to final show cause notice by the AO. CIT(A) observed that there are various decisions of Hon'ble ITAT Benches an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 income and expenditure. On perusal of the 7/12 abstract, it was noted by AO that total land holding admeasure to 2.66 hectare in the name of Late Shri Ashwinkumar M. Patel. Therefore, AO observed that it is not possible to earn this huge agriculture income of ₹ 22,09,020/- from the above piece of land during the year under consideration. However, the assessee has also not furnished any evidence in support of payment made for agricultural expenses. Further, it is also noticed from the assessee s joint bank with his wife Smt. Niruben Ashwinbhai Patel, being A/c No.02410100002645, in Bank of Baroda that assessee has received ₹ 4,48,220/- and ₹ 10,56,114/- totaling to ₹ 15,04,334/- (₹ 4,48,220+₹ 10,56,114) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tutory 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 ₹ 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 basis the expenses were calculated by AO @ 40% of the agricultural income of ₹ 15,04,334/- received from Gandevi Sugar Gandevi Khand in bank account, which comes to ₹ 6,01,733/-, were made during the year from income from other sources. Thus, the total addition of ₹ 21,06,067/- (₹ 15,04,334 + ₹ 6,01,733/-) was made on account of expenses made from the income from other sources and unexplained investment. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has partly allowed the appeal of assessee. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018 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 ₹ 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 the agriculture land but did not furnish any evidence regarding agriculture income expenditure. As per 7/12 abstract the total land holding was just 2.66 hectare in the name of assessee. The then AO specifically observed even in the assessment order that it is not possible to earn this huge agriculture income of ₹ 22,09,020/- from this much agriculture land in a year. Due to this reason the then AO repeatedly requested even by show cause to the assessee to furnish the details and proof of agriculture income and expenditure account along with supporting bills/vouch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 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 evidence . This claimed evidence also does not hold any merit as no details in form of voucher/bill, quality/quantity of goods or service, date of sale transaction and moreover no certification for the transaction is attached with this ledger copy. It is also seen that this claimed payment is done through bearer cheque. 7. Thus in view of the above analysis and facts of the case, it is dear that the addition made by the AO deserves to be sustained and the grounds of the assessee don't hold any merit and his/her contention is just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O 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 ₹ 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 Ahmedabad in the case of Kuldeep B. Sodhi (ITA no. 3144 /AHD/2010), the Hon'ble bench had allowed 30% of agriculture receipts to be treated as agriculture expenses and balance 70% was allowed as agriculture income. The evidences of land holdings and copies of certificates of Sahkari Mandli indicate earning of agriculture income by the assessee but there is no verifiable documentary evidences for the net agriculture income of ₹ 22,09,020/- shown in the ROI. Thus, after considering th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral 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 ₹ 7,81,363/-only as against ₹ 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 the same date. This fact clearly indicates that the assessee was not in a position to explain the agriculture income and as an afterthought, the affidavit could have been filed in response to final show cause notice by the AO. The affidavit reducing agriculture income from ₹ 31,42,190/- to ₹ 7,81,363/- is not acceptable due to following facts: (l) The assessee had shown agriculture income of ₹ 22,09,020/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
