Agricultural income proof and section 14A disallowance: own-fund presumption defeated interest disallowance, with indirect restricted.

Agricultural income cannot be treated as income from other sources merely because evidence for the relevant year is incomplete; actual agricultural activity must be examined against the statutory definition, and the matter was remitted for de novo adjudication. Under section 14A read with rule 8D, where the assessee's own funds exceeded the investments yielding exempt income, the presumption was that the investments came from own funds, so the interest component of the disallowance was deleted. For indirect expenditure, a mechanical percentage disallowance was not justified on the facts, and the disallowance was restricted to a nominal amount.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agricultural income of the assessee could be treated as income from other sources for want of evidence of agricultural activity during the relevant previous year; (ii) Whether disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D could be sustained, and if so to what extent.

Issue (i): Whether the agricultural income of the assessee could be treated as income from other sources for want of evidence of agricultural activity during the relevant previous year.

Analysis: The assessee produced land records and relied on acceptance of agricultural income in earlier years, but the record for the relevant year did not sufficiently establish actual agricultural operations or production during the year under appeal. Agricultural income must arise from agricultural activity as contemplated by section 2(1A), and the mere past acceptance of such income does not conclude the issue for a different assessment year. At the same time, the matter required fuller examination of the assessee's evidence.

Conclusion: The addition was set aside and the issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

Issue (ii): Whether disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D could be sustained, and if so to what extent.

Analysis: The assessee's own capital exceeded the investments yielding exempt income, so the presumption applied that the investments were made out of own funds and not borrowed funds, making the interest disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) unsustainable. As regards indirect expenditure, the accounts and explanations showed that a blanket disallowance at the statutory percentage was not justified on the facts, but some attribution to exempt income was still warranted. A restricted and reasonable disallowance was considered appropriate having regard to section 14A(2).

Conclusion: The interest disallowance was deleted and the further disallowance was restricted to Rs. 2,500.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, with the agricultural-income issue restored to the Assessing Officer and the section 14A disallowance substantially reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee's own funds are more than the investments yielding exempt income, the presumption is that such investments are out of own funds, and a disallowance of interest under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(ii) is not warranted; further, disallowance for indirect expenditure must be reasonable and based on the accounts rather than applied mechanically.

---