Case Law Details
Sri. George M George Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin)
The assessee had declared a sum of 12,36,000 as agricultural income. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer held that agricultural income offered for rate purpose is in respect of six properties which is claimed to be belonging to the members of Muthoot family. The Assessing Officer after examining the documents of each of these six agricultural properties, held that the said properties did not belong to the assessee, but to the other family members. Further, it was categorically concluded by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he was in receipt of agricultural income on account of operation conducted by him on the said family properties.
The above categorical findings of the Assessing Officer was never dispelled by the assessee by placing contra evidence. Admittedly, the assessee was never the owner of the agricultural properties from where it is claimed that he was in receipt of agricultural income of Rs. 12,36,000. The assessee did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that he was in receipt of any agricultural income on account of any agricultural operation carried out by him. Therefore, we are of the view that the Income-tax Authorities have correctly held that the assessee was not in receipt of Rs. 12,36,000 as agricultural income. Having held Rs. 12,36,000 as not agricultural income, the sum that is credited to the book of account has to be necessarily added as income from other sources u/s 68 of the I.T.Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 22.03.20 18. The relevant assessment year is 2009-20 10.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
