9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nities were allowed to the assessee but assessee was remained unsuccessful for providing any documents in favour of its claim. The assessee did not possess any agricultural land or property for generating the revenue against this asset. Related to paid up share capital, share premium and current liability and provisions was remained unexplained and unverified. In the hearing before the ITAT the assessee was remained unsuccessful to submit any documents or evidence in its favour. We find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO. Decided against assessee. Disallowance of Lease money rebate on account of liability created by the SEBI which the assessee company booked as expenses - AO added back the same - CIT(A) had dealt the issue in his order - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has not erred in law as well as on the facts by not allowing the rebate on account of liability created by the SEBI on account of lease money shown as income by the assessee company - We find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - I.T.A. No.287 to 291/Asr/2017 I.T.A. No.198/Asr/201 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2023 - DR. M. L. MEENA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE , JUDICIAL MEMBER For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent inquiry through the Inspector on the basis of information provided by the assessee appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the gross receipts of Rs. 39,03,62,282/- as income of the assessee company from other sources without appreciating that all the receipts are either from sale of agricultural produce amounting to Rs. 23,25,14,401/- or amounts received from various persons in connection with the agricultural process as lease money amounting to Rs. 15,78,47,881/- as per evidence and other material filed by the assessee appellant from time to time and also reported by the other investigating agencies including independent inquiries made by the department through its Inspector. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts in not allowing the undisputed expenditure incurred by the assessee appellant amounting to Rs. 16,90,96,294/- out of the gross receipts amounting to Rs. 39,03,62,282/- by holding that since the appellate company is indulged in fraudulent activities of shoring up revenue by illegally collecting money and not through agricultural activities wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l income. The assessee received the share capital but due to lack of verification the share capital, the share premium and current liability and provisions are added back with the total income aggregate amount of Rs. 21,63,49,889/- as remained unexplained. The agricultural turnover amount to Rs. 39,03,62,282/- was also added back due to non-existence of bona fide agricultural land. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) remained unsuccessful. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 5. The Ld. CIT DR submitted that the assessee is not holding any agricultural property but credited the agricultural income in the books of account. Also, the share capital and share premium and current liabilities are remained unexplained and unverified before the Ld. AO. He fully relied on the order of both the revenue authorities. 6. The assessee first challenged the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO related to the assessment u/s. 148 of the Act. Here, recorded reason of the Ld. AO in page No. 1 of the assessment order which is reproduced as under: The assessee company filed its return of income on 29.11.2010 declaring income of Rs. NIL. Apart from this, the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice with regard to the agricultural activities of the company at the site on which it was claimed by the company that on the said land the company was doing agricultural activities. During site inspection, the Inspector of this office visited the land at Village Raura Tehsil Baap Distt. Jodhpur. The Inspector had reported that land was dry, and some part of land was barren and on which some plants like Brahmi, Dake, Sheesham were growing which could not yield such high revenue. Moreover, the growth period of trees was approximately 10 to 12 years. They could not yield such high income, thus, burden of proof is upon the assessee to prove that his income was agricultural income which was exempted from tax and the whole income of Rs. 1,09,66,93,875/- by treating as income from unexplained other source in view of the following observation:- (i) Girdawari of the agricultural land on which it was claimed that the company and the other small farmers to whom the land was given on lease were doing agricultural activity. Girdawari is the vital documents from which the nature of the activities on the land can be adjudged carried on by any person, whether it were agricultural activity or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tune of Rs. 38,34,86,813/-, which had been claimed as exempt under the head 'agriculture income' by the assessee for the A.Y. 2009-10, is required to be taxed as unexplained income from other sources. In the light of the above, I have reasons to believe that the assessee company has escaped assessment an amount of Rs. 38,34,86,813/- by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 is to be issued to reassess the income which has escaped assessment besides any other income chargeable to tax which would have escaped assessment and would come to my notice subsequently in the course of assessment proceedings under this section, within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The reopen was made on basis of the information. The assessing authority also completed the verification before come to the conclusion for reopening the case of the assessee. The entire issue was dealt by the Ld. AO very carefully and also the prior approval was obtained from the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.3. It may be mentioned here that the onus is upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the agricultural income which the assessee has failed to prove. In the case of CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC) the Hon'ble Court have held that the assessee has to put before the income-tax authorities proper material which will enable them to come to a conclusion that the income which is sought to be assessed, is agricultural income. It is not for the Income-tax Authorities to prove that it is not an agricultural income. In the other case, CIT v. Ramakrishna Deo [1956] 35 ITR 312 (SC) it was held by the Hon'ble Court that a person who claimed the benefit to an exemption has to establish it. Thus, burden of proof is on assessee to prove that his income is agricultural income which is exempt from tax. 4.4 I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income as mentioned above and therefore, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. In the balance sheet annexed with the audit report, the assessee has shown increase in paid up share capital at Rs. 4,00,000/- and share premium received at Rs. 36,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treating the gross agricultural income as income from other sources is upheld on the basis of reasons recorded in the aforesaid appellate order. A copy of the said appellate order dated 13/02/2017 is made part of this order. 4. So far as the addition of Rs. 21,63,49,889/- is concerned, the appellant company is seen to have not cooperated in the assessment proceedings in as much as the sources for such accretion was never explained before the AO. Even in the appellate stage, no effort has been made to demonstrate the sources which led to the accretion. Other than castigating the AO for not giving adequate opportunity to explain the accretion, no other explanation was either offered at the assessment stage or at the appellate stage. In the circumstances, the action of the AO is upheld. 9. We heard the rival submission and perused the orders of the revenue authorities. We find that the assessee was unable to substantiate its claim through the evidence in ITAT. The several opportunities were allowed to the assessee but assessee was remained unsuccessful for providing any documents in favour of its claim. The assessee did not possess any agricultural land or property for ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
