short Overviwe: Where adangal village account with respect to cultivation extract as received from Revenue authorities by AO disclosed no such cultivation of banana as claimed by assessee and moreover, assessee himself had also admitted before AO that Rs. 10 lakhs was not part of agricultural income, therefore, addition was rightly made by AO.

Assessee claimed agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 27,74,849. Even though assessee has produced the details of agricultural lands owned by him, according to Department, adangal extract was not filed before AO to establish the cultivation. According to department, assessee claimed before AO that banana was cultivated in 6.31 acres of land. AO called for the adangal extract from the State Revenue authorities which discloses that banana was not cultivated in the land. Moreover, in respect of the land wherein the assessee claimed to have cultivated crops, many pieces of the lands were not cultivated by assessee. AO found that entire income of Rs. 27,74,849 could not have been earned from cultivation and also found that assessee himself admitted that Rs. 10 lakhs was not part of agricultural income. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs out of Rs. 27,74,849 was not from agriculture and added the same to taxable income.

It is held that: Assessee could not file any material to substantiate the claim of cultivation of banana and crops as claimed before the AO. State Revenue authorities were maintaining the cultivation account. In fact, Village Administrative Officer was keeping the adangal, which is otherwise known as Village Account with respect to cultivation. The adangal extract as received from the Revenue authorities by AO disclosed no such cultivation of banana as claimed by assessee. Inspite of these materials, AO was fair enough to disallow only Rs. 10 lakhs. Moreover, assessee himself had also admitted before AO that Rs. 10 lakhs was not part of agricultural income. Therefore, addition made by AO was confirmed.

Decision: Against the assessee

 

IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH

N.R.S. GANESAN, J.M.

Subramanian Sivaraj v. ITO

ITA No. 1462/Chny/2018

5 July, 2019

Appellant by: None

Respondent by: Sanath Kumar Raha, JCIT

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore, dated 13-2-2018 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.

2. This appeal of the assessee was posted on several occasions. Initially, the appeal was posted on 4-10-2018. Subsequently, it was adjourned to 19-11-2018. On the request of the assessee, the appeal was again adjourned to 3-7-2019. The learned Representative for the assessee has also taken note of the date of adjournment by making an endorsement in the appeal folder. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 3-7-2019, no one appeared for the assessee. Therefore, I heard the learned Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit.

3. Sanath Kumar Raha, the learned Departmental Representative, submitted that 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, according to the learned Departmental Representative, the adangal extract was not filed before the assessing officer to establish the cultivation. According to the learned Departmental Representative, the assessee claimed before the assessing officer that banana was cultivated in 6.31 acres of land. 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. Moreover, in respect of the land wherein the assessee claimed to have cultivated crops, many of the lands were not cultivated by the assessee. According to the learned Departmental Representative, the assessee also claimed before the assessing officer that he has taken some of the lands on lease for cultivation. After considering adangal extract and part of cultivation made by the assessee, the assessing officer found that the entire income of Rs. 27,74,849 could not have been earned from cultivation. According to the learned Departmental Representative, the assessing officer also found that the assessee himself admitted that Rs. 10 lakhs is not part of agricultural income. Accordingly, the assessing officer 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.

4. I heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the relevant material available on record. 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. Inspite of these materials, the assessing officer was fair enough to disallow only Rs. 10 lakhs. Moreover, the assessee himself has also admitted before the assessing officer that Rs. 10 lakhs was not part of agricultural income. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.