Case Law Details
Shri Subramanian Sivaraj Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in making addition in the return by considering the income as not from agriculture on the failure of Assessee to prove agriculture activity?
In the present case, the assessee claimed agricultural income to the extent of Rs 27,74,849/-. Even though the assessee has produced the details of agricultural lands owned by him, the adangal extract was not filed before the Assessing Officer to establish the cultivation. The Assessing Officer called for the adangal extract from the State Revenue authorities which discloses that the banana was not cultivated in the land wherein banana was claimed to have been cultivated. Further, it is also found that the assessee himself admitted that Rs.10 lakhs is not part of agricultural income. Accordingly, the AO found that a sum of Rs.10 lakhs out of Rs.27,74,849/- was not from agriculture and added the same to the taxable income.
ITAT states that the assessee could not file any material before this Tribunal to substantiate the claim of cultivation of banana and crops as claimed before the Assessing Officer. State Revenue authorities are maintaining the cultivation account. In fact, the Village Administrative Officer is keeping the adangal, which is otherwise known as Village Account No.2, with respect to cultivation. The adangal extract as received from the Revenue authorities by the Assessing Officer discloses no such cultivation of banana as claimed by the assessee. Therefore,ITAT do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
