Case Law Details
Shankar Namdeo Kashid Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai remanded the matter to jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication since the assessee was not able to furnish the documents at the time of assessment proceedings and the documents furnished before CIT(A) were not considered/ verified.
Facts- The assessee is an individual and has shown income from salary, income from sources, and agricultural income. For the assessment year 2011-12, the assessee filed his return of income on 26/07/2011 declaring a total income of Rs.9,76,310 and agricultural income of Rs.1,84,47,847. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the information received from the office of the Directorate of Income Tax (System), New Delhi that the assessee has shown agricultural income and the same has been claimed as exempt. It was also mentioned that the assessee showing agricultural income of more than Rs.1 crore from the assessment years 200708 to 2015-16 is engaged in routing their unaccounted/illegal money in the garb of agricultural income, thereby not only claiming exemption on such income but also engaged During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of agricultural income of Rs.1,84,47,847 claimed as exempt. The assessee was also asked to show cause as to why the income of Rs.1,84,47,847 be not treated as income from unexplained sources and added to his total income.
Vide notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act, the assessee was once again asked to submit the above said details. However, as noted in the assessment order, the assessee did not submit any details, moreover took an adjournment for about a month.
As noted by the AO, on 30/12/2016, the assessee produce certain copies (not original) of bills which are not supported by any original documents such as loading/unloading charges, octroi receipts, transportation receipt, weigh bridge receipts, stock register, etc. Further, the assessee also did not produce any evidence in support of carrying out any agricultural activities such as sowing, tilling, plowing, harvesting etc. Therefore, in the absence of originals/supporting documents, the AO rejected the claim of exemption of agriculture income and treated the same as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Accordingly, the AO added Rs.1,84,47,847 to the total income of the assessee under the head income from other sources.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
