2003 (7) TMI 639 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules on agricultural and house property income, granting partial and full relief to the assessee

SR. Garg Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

SR. Garg Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2004] 2 SOT 223 (DELHI) Issues Involved:1. Assessment of agricultural income as income from other sources.2. Inclusion of income under the head income from house property.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Assessment of Agricultural Income as Income from Other Sources:The appeal was directed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) dated 30-3-1998 for the assessment year 1994-95. The primary issue was the assessment of agricultural income as income from other sources. The assessee, employed with M/s Ashok Kumar Garg and Brothers, filed a return of income which was later revised to include agricultural income of Rs. 68,942 for rate purposes. The Assessing Officer (AO) asked the assessee to substantiate the claim of agricultural operations. Due to the lack of satisfactory evidence, the AO treated the entire income as income from other sources. This decision was upheld by the CIT(A), prompting the appeal.The assessee's counsel argued that documents found during a search, including possession papers of agricultural land and sale bills of agricultural produce, proved the agricultural activities. However, no evidence of actual cultivation was found. The AO and CIT(A) did not find discrepancies in the documents but required detailed evidence of agricultural operations and expenses, which the assessee failed to provide. Consequently, the tribunal accepted agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 50,000 on an estimation basis for rate purposes, while the balance of Rs. 18,942 was rightly taxed as income from other sources. The assessee received partial relief.2. Inclusion of Income Under the Head Income from House Property:The second issue involved the inclusion of income under the head income from house property. The assessee owned a property in Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi, used by his proprietary concern, which was later converted into a partnership firm. The property continued to be used by the partnership firm. The AO questioned why no income from house property was disclosed, as the assessee was the owner but not a partner in his individual capacity. The AO computed the net income taxable under the head 'income from house property' at Rs. 23,52,000 based on the property's sale price. The CIT(A) upheld this inclusion, leading to the appeal.The assessee's counsel argued that the lower authorities' findings were against the provisions of the law. The counsel cited various court decisions, including the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, which established that a partner representing his HUF has two capacities: as an individual and as a trustee for the HUF. The property owned by an individual and used for the business of the firm satisfies the condition under section 22, even if the individual represents his HUF. The counsel argued that the assessee was covered by section 22 and no income from house property accrued to him. The tribunal agreed, stating that the premises were deemed occupied by the assessee in his business, thus exempting the annual letting value from being chargeable to income tax. Consequently, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.In conclusion, the appeal directed by the assessee was partly allowed, providing partial relief on the agricultural income issue and full relief on the house property income issue.