2019 (2) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....turned. The CIT(A) also has rejected the new evidence produced by the assessee ignoring his submissions. 2. The fact that the assessee was not fully aware of the provisions of the act during the year was ignored by the officer. 3. Any other grounds that may be allowed." 3. The brief facts of the case reads as follows:- The assessee is a housewife and owning agricultural land. She is also having income from share trading during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2010-2011. For the assessment year 2010-2011, the return of income was filed on 17.07.2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,21,600. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act and intimation was duly served on the assessee. Subsequently,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eement dated 02.04.2009 entered between the assessee and Sri.Appukuttan, whereby the assessee had sold 200 rubber trees, 18 number of teak treas, 10 number of Anjili trees for a total consideration of Rs. 11,00,000. As per the terms of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 was received as advance on 02.04.2009 Rs. 1,30,000 on 26.08.2009, Rs. 3,60,000 on 02.10.2009 and Rs. 3,60,000 on 05.10.2009. The CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The remand report was furnished by the Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 26.02.2018. However, the agreement dated 02.04.2009 was not taken on record for the reason, assessee could not state the reasons coming within the exceptions under Rule 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1963. The CIT(A)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tted that the agreement entered between Sri.Appukuttan and the assessee on 02.04.2009 is not an additional evidence. It was submitted that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the assessee's claim of agricultural income of Rs. 6 lakh would be accepted as a source in respect of assessee's share of deposit in the bank. It was stated that since the Assessing Officer declined to accept the agricultural income as the source of deposit in the assessment order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain the availability of agricultural income for making bank deposits, the assessee had no choice other than to furnish further evidence before the CIT(A) to strength her claim for having received agricultural income. It ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....only Rs. 1,21,600. The taxable minimum during the relevant assessment year was Rs. 1,90,000. Therefore, for all likelihood, the assessee may have missed out on declaring the agricultural income on a bonafide belief that agricultural income need not be disclosed for the Central income tax purpose as it does effect for rate purpose. Moreover, item 12 of Schedule Part B-T1 of the return of income where the computation of total income is entered requires to enter net agricultural income "for rate purpose". Since the total income of the assessee did not exceed nontaxable maximum of the year, it is not required to show net agricultural income in Schedule PartB-T1 of the return "for rate purpose" as the agriculture income did not make any impact i....