Case Law Details
The CIT (A) considered the question of addition of Rs. 41,08,724/- by AO under Section 68 of the Act and have recorded findings that if in the previous years the agricultural income from the same land on which agricultural crops were produced by the appellant was accepted, he could not have recorded findings that in the present assessment year in question,
the income could not be treated as agricultural income for want of proof of records of fertilizer and chemicals and expenditures incurred on tube-well boring, construction of store house, leveling of field etc. The ITAT has confirmed the findings recorded by CIT (A). Even if each assessment year is treated to be a separate unit, the findings in respect of previous years based on the record of title and possession of agricultural land, and the evidence led for proving that agricultural operations were carried out and crops were produced could not be disbelieved in the subsequent year, for want of primary evidence. The assessee was not required to submit proof of agricultural operations every year, in the absence of any material, which may suggest that the agricultural operations were stopped or was not carried out in the relevant period. There was no evidence to establish that the assessee has sold the agricultural land or that the assessee had stooped the agricultural operations. Further, the CIT (A) and ITAT have recorded findings that the assessee as a Private Company was maintaining regular books of accounts as required under the Companies Act, which were also audited and accepted in the AGM of the Company. The entries in the books were not proved to be bogus. There is nothing under the Income-tax Act debarring the assessee from selling agricultural produce in cash, and thus additions based only on suspicion could not be sustained.
Allahabad High Court
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 106 of 2011
Commissioner Of Income Tax
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
