Case Law Details
Gopal Agarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
ITAT Hyderabad held that assessee neither before AO nor before CIT(A) could produce any evidence to support his astronomical agricultural income. Accordingly, in absence of evidence, addition sustained.
Facts- During the course of assessment proceedings, from the details furnished by the assessee, AO noted that the assessee owns 4.3 acres of land at Shamirpet Village and that his son Mayur owns another 3.5 acres of land. It was claimed by the assessee that paddy is grown in this land and that there are teak wood trees adjacent to the agricultural land which were sold. It was accordingly claimed that the assessee has earned agricultural income of Rs.16,12,000/-. However, no proof of sale of agricultural produce was furnished.
AO noted that the assessee has claimed Rs.12,53,000/- as income from sale of paddy from a land holding of around 8 acres. According to the Assessing Officer, earning of such huge income from 8 acres of land is unbelievable. He therefore, estimated such income at Rs.20,000/- per acre and determined the agricultural income at Rs.1,60,000/- per annum. So far as the income from teak wood trees which were grown on the boundaries and sold for Rs.3,59,000/- is concerned, the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer in absence of supporting evidence. AO accordingly determined the total agricultural income at Rs.1,60,000/- per annum and made the balance addition of Rs.14,52,000/- treating the same as income from other sources.
Conclusion- Admittedly, the assessee neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the learned CIT (A) nor even before us could produce any evidence to support his astronomical agricultural income of Rs.12,53,000/- from 8 acres of landholding by selling paddy and Rs.3,59,000/- from sale of teakwood trees. Under these circumstances and in view of the detailed reasonings given by the learned CIT (A) on this issue, we do not find any infirmity in the same. Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue is also upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
