Sworn affidavit on agricultural income accepted without rebuttal evidence, section 69 addition deleted

The ITAT Jodhpur ruled in favor of the assessee regarding agricultural income determination. The case involved addition under section 69 for difference between admitted and net agricultural income. The assessee filed an affidavit dated 15.02.2018 claiming only agricultural activity as income source without disputed investments. Neither the AO nor CIT(A) discussed or disputed the affidavit contents, and the assessee was not cross-examined. The tribunal held that sworn affidavit averments must be accepted unless rebutted by evidence, directing deletion of the addition made by AO.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Justification of the assessment of total income.
3. Assumption of differential agricultural income as income chargeable to tax.
4. Addition of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs under section 69.
5. Justification of interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The Bench observed a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee's representative explained that the delay was due to the physical appeal documents being returned undelivered by the courier agency. The Bench noted that the delay was justified as the documents were initially sent on time but were returned, and the appeal was subsequently filed online. The delay was condoned in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC), as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause.

2. Justification of the Assessment of Total Income:
The assessee declared an income of Rs. 2.25 Lakhs from the sale of milk and Rs. 25.50 Lakhs as agricultural income. The case was selected for scrutiny due to the large agricultural income declared. The assessee claimed that the large agricultural income was due to an innocent mistake, where the gross amount was reported instead of the net income. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the assessment, noting that the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for the expenses incurred or the lands taken on Theka/Batai. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation was plausible and that the affidavit provided by the assessee was not rebutted by the AO.

3. Assumption of Differential Agricultural Income as Income Chargeable to Tax:
The AO assumed the differential amount of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs as income from other sources, chargeable to tax under section 69. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld this finding, stating that the assessee did not provide evidence for the agricultural expenses or lands taken on Theka/Batai. The Tribunal, however, noted that the affidavit provided by the assessee, stating that he had no other source of income except agriculture, was not disputed or cross-examined by the AO. The Tribunal held that the affidavit should be accepted as correct unless rebutted by evidence.

4. Addition of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs under Section 69:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs under section 69, assuming it to be income from other sources. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld this addition. The Tribunal found that the addition was based on hypothetical assumptions without cogent material evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's affidavit, which declared no investment or expenditure of the alleged amount, was not rebutted by the AO. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition, citing various judicial precedents supporting the acceptance of uncontroverted affidavits.

5. Justification of Interest Charged under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C:
The assessee challenged the interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The Tribunal did not specifically adjudicate this ground, as it was consequential to the main issue of the addition under section 69. Since the addition was deleted, the interest charged under these sections would also be impacted accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of the addition of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs made by the AO. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, and the interest charged under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not specifically adjudicated as it was consequential to the main issue. The appeal was pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

---