Tribunal allows appeals, deletes AO additions, condones appeal delay, exempts agricultural income. Unexplained expenditures deleted.

The Tribunal allowed all appeals, deleting additions made by the AO. The delay in filing appeals was condoned. Agricultural income was not taxed as income from other sources due to lack of incriminating material. Unexplained expenditures on LIC premiums, NSC investments, and fixed deposits were deleted as the Assessee provided reasonable explanations. The Tribunal pronounced the judgment in open court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals.
2. Taxation of agricultural income as income from other sources.
3. Addition of unexplained expenditure related to LIC premium payments.
4. Addition of unexplained expenditure related to NSC investments.
5. Addition of unexplained investment in fixed deposits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeals:
The Assessee filed appeals with a delay of 844 days. The Tribunal considered the reasons for the delay and condoned it by an order dated 28.1.2021.

2. Taxation of Agricultural Income:
The Assessee declared agricultural income in the returns for AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12, which were filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO treated the agricultural income as "income from other sources" due to the Assessee's inability to produce crop details and sale bills. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's decision. The Assessee argued that the additions were not based on any incriminating material found during the search, referencing the Tribunal's decision in Yunus Zia v. DCIT and the Karnataka High Court's decision in Prl.CIT vs. M/S.Delhi International Airport Pvt.Ltd. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the assessments for AYs 2009-10 to 2011-12 were unabated and could not be disturbed without incriminating material. Consequently, the additions were deleted.

For AYs 2008-09 and 2013-14, the Tribunal noted the Assessee's age (80 years) and the undisputed agricultural holdings. The absence of crop details and sale bills could only cast doubt on the quantum but not justify treating the entire agricultural income as income from other sources. Thus, the additions were deleted.

3. Addition of Unexplained Expenditure Related to LIC Premium Payments:
In ITA No.683/Bang/2020 and ITA No.684/Bang/2020, the AO added unexplained expenditure for LIC premiums paid by the Assessee's daughter, Dr. M.K. Girija, based on receipts found during the search. The Tribunal held that the presumption under section 292C of the Act did not imply that the Assessee paid the premiums, especially since the policies and receipts were in the daughter's name. Therefore, the additions were deleted.

4. Addition of Unexplained Expenditure Related to NSC Investments:
In ITA No.685/Bang/2020, the AO added unexplained expenditure for an NSC certificate found during the search, which was in the name of Dr. M.K. Girija. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessee could not be asked to explain the source of investment in the daughter's name. Hence, the addition was deleted.

5. Addition of Unexplained Investment in Fixed Deposits:
In ITA No.685/Bang/2020, the AO added unexplained investment for a fixed deposit of Rs. 2,50,000 found during the search. The Assessee claimed it was from past savings. Considering the Assessee's age and past income, the Tribunal accepted the explanation and deleted the addition.

Conclusion:
All the appeals were allowed, and the additions made by the AO were deleted. The Tribunal pronounced the judgment in the open court.

---