AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 742
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ploading on 18.07.2023 vide Ackn.1689581059 on e-filing portal of ITAT and subsequently physical appeal-documents were sent through courier agency - DTDC Express Ltd. vide Consignment No.W13011263 on 18.07.2023 which had recently been received on back on 01.08.2023 with the remarks "receiver not available" copies of courier receipt along-with screenshot for attempted delivery are attached herewith. Submits physical appeal-documents are being sent again with an application requesting to condone the delay in filing, if any, because there existed sufficient reasonable cause as explained above." 2.1 The ld. AR of the assessee placed on record the report of the courier agency wherein they have reported that on 20.07.2023 they have attempted delivery but could not be made and thereafter the assessee filed it online. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR not rebut the facts on record placed by the assessee and submitted that bench may decide the issue as deem fit in the interest of justice. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench Noted that the assessee for condonation of delay of 16 days has merit as they have earlier sent t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n theka or batai was furnished as it was never asked for though it was later referred in the last notice of the AO for which the time period was short. Assessee had also explained that no amount was ever used or required for investment and expenditure so as to cause assessee to show large amount of agricultural income affirmed in its affidavit but AO did not consider it however agriculture income of Rs. 10 Lac was accepted there after he made addition of Rs. 15.50 Lac under section 69 though no investment or expenditure or money was found with assessee by AO rather it was proceeded on hypothetical assumptions. Not only this AO thereafter attracted provisions of section 115BBE for levying tax at maximum rate whereas section 69 or 69A was not applicable. 5. Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: "6.4 During the course of appellant proceedings, the appellant submitted that he had filed return of income admitting total income of Rs. 2,25,000/- and agricultural income of Rs. 25,50,000/-. However, while filing the return of inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant proceedings also the appellant failed to submit documentary evidence with regard to expenditure of Rs. 15.50 lakhs to arrive net agricultural income of Rs. 10 lakhs after deducting expenditure of Rs. 15.50 lakhs from the gross agricultural income of Rs. 25.50 lakhs( as stated by the appellant). Further, the appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence for having taken land on Theka/Batai from other persons. 7.4 In view of the above, no infirmity is found in the action of the appellant in making addition of Rs. 15.50 under the head income from other sources and computing the income at special rates as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal Nos. 3 & 4 are required to be dismissed. 7.5 Therefore, these grounds of appeal Nos. 3 & 4 are dismissed." 6. As the assessee did not find any favour against the appeal filed before NFAC, assessee has preferred this appeal before this tribunal. To support the grounds of appeal so raised by the assessee the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission on record and the same is reproduced here in below : "The appellant deriving main inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccount for income & expenditures of agriculture was maintained. 5. The appellant, unaware of income-tax law and procedure, had signed the verification of Return of Income in which gross income of Rs. 25.50 Lakhs for agriculture instead of net income was mentioned by the person who prepared and filed it as explained immediately at first hearing of the case taken up for assessment. 6. Return of Income and Bank Accounts of the appellant had not revealed utilization of impugned differential amount of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs either in deposits, investment in property, spending on expenditure, cash available nor the order of assessment stating chances of hypothetical assumptions of utilization of impugned Rs. 15.50 Lakhs gave no cogent material. The appellant submits that the AO denying acceptance of its explanation for showing gross agriculture income instead of net agriculture income had laid stress on the following logic / pleas: a. Verification of the return was signed by the assessee; b. Assessee did not rectify the return of income; c. If the case was not picked for scrutiny under CASS the assessee would get capital of Rs. 25.50 Lac on account of agriculture income and the same....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was reasonable which was admitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings as the assessee had consistently stated to have not maintained any records or books of account for the expenditure and income of agriculture therefore these contentions would have no relevance after ascertainment of agriculture income at Rs. 10 Lac to which the assessee had no dispute looking net income of Rs. 10 Lac being within usual percentage of 40% to 45% of gross income. Though the affidavits along-with of two persons-Sh.Kheta Ram and Rajender Kumar whose land taken on basis of Theka / Batai by the appellant had been uploaded on 17.05.2023 during hearing of appeal before the CIT(A) NFAC (Annexure-3). Non-acceptance of plausible bona fide explanation that gross agricultural income of Rs. 25.50 Lakhs instead of net income had been shown due to innocent mistake of the person who had prepared to file its return of income, was not justified, rather gross income of Rs. 25.50 Lakhs as claimed by the assessee would be required to ascertain net income at Rs. 10 Lakhs from agriculture. Since no books of accounts or any record for the expenditure and income of agriculture was maintained, AO's finding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) NFAC was not justified to sustain addition of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs u/s 69 in the order of assessment laying stress that (i) agriculture income of Rs. 25.50 Lakhs admitted by way of showing in Return of Income duly signed by the appellant against ascertainment of agriculture income at Rs. 10 Lakhs on basis of extent of land holdings and (ii) the appellant did not furnish evidence for agricultural expenditure of Rs. 15.50 Lakhs to arrive at net income of Rs. 10 Lakhs and for the lands of other persons taken on Theka / Batai though both the authorities below did not controvert the aforesaid salient facts and circumstances corroborated by averments of Notarized Affidavit dated 15.02.2018, moreover no material or evidence indicating investment, property deposits, cash etc. was found/noticed from the bank accounts except mentioning of agriculture income of Rs. 25.50 Lakhs which was explained to be gross income that is why the AO had ascertained net agriculture income of Rs. 10 Lakhs therefore the description of excess amount of agriculture income in the return of income though explained to be gross amount instead of net amount during assessment, would not justify for treating impugned diff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from agriculture was shown. Since the assessee has offered the large amount of agricultural income in the return of income the case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the source of agricultural income. 11. The assessee contended before the ld. AO that showing large agricultural income of Rs. 25.50 Lac was due to innocent mistake in taking gross amount instead of net income, occurred on the part of the person who prepared and filed return of income though signed by the assessee who having farmer background never came across with income tax laws and procedure. Assessee had said to cultivate usually its own lands of 46 bighas and lands taken on theka or bataia basis from other persons to justify agricultural income gross and net income however no formal evidence in support of having taken lands of others on theka or batai was furnished as it was never asked for though it was later referred in the last notice of the AO for which the time period was short. Assessee had also explained that no amount was ever used or required for investment and expenditure so as to cause assessee to show large amount of agricultural income affirmed in its affidavit dated 15.02.2018 filed during....