Padam Kumar Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
Assessee, an individual, filed his return for A.Y. 2018-19 declaring total income of ₹ 18.32 lakh & showing agricultural income of ₹ 8.37 lakh. A search u/s 132 was carried out on 01-11-2018, after which notice u/s 153A was issued. Assessee reiterated the same income in his response.
During assessment, AO observed that Assessee had only furnished copies of patta showing land ownership but produced no supporting evidence-such as chitta, adangal, expenditure details, or sale bills-to prove cultivation or sale of agricultural produce. AO therefore treated the entire ₹ 8.37 lakh as unexplained cash credit u/s 68.
CIT(A) accepted that Assessee & his family collectively owned about 47 acres of wet & dry agricultural land but observed that mere ownership cannot prove active cultivation. In absence of crop records or proof of sale, full exemption couldn’t be granted.
As a fair estimate, CIT(A) accepted 50 % (₹ 4.18 lakh) of the declared agricultural income as genuine & confirmed balance ₹ 4.18 lakh as unexplained.
For A.Y. 2019-20, on similar facts, out of ₹ 4.36 lakh claimed, ₹ 2.18 lakh was disallowed.
Before the Tribunal, Assessee argued that land ownership & long-standing agricultural family background substantiated the claim. Department countered that no bills, vouchers, or agricultural evidence were produced at any stage-even during search.
