TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. That the ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law so far as the first appellate order passed by him/her is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of 50% of agricultural income as income from other sources without adequate consideration of the explanation and supporting documents produced at the time of assessment as well as appeal proceedings 3. The appellate authority failed to provide sufficient opportunity to produce documentary evidence supporting the claim of agricultural income. 4. The CIT(A) misinterpreted the evidence provided, including lease agreements and land details, which clearly established the extent an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ops grown and quantity of agricultural produce grown, books of accounts and financial statements in support of the claim of agriculture income, the AO was of the opinion that the claim of agricultural income is not acceptable and therefore, concluded the assessment by adopting 50% of net agricultural income of Rs. 98,87,020/- which works out to Rs. 49,43,510/- as "income from other sources" and the balance of Rs. 49,43,510/- was adopted as net agricultural income for rate purposes. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 19.12.2018, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. During the course of the First Appellate proceedings the assessee had submitted the copies of lease agreements, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f land holding details, bills issued by the buyers, bank statements, agricultural expenses bills as well as copy of lease agreements. 6. The solitary issue that is raised whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the 50% of Net agricultural income declared as "income from other sources" without any adverse material ? 7. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the addition of 50% of agriculture income as income from other sources especially when during the course of assessment proceedings the copies of the sales bills of ginger were produced. Further, the ld. AO himself after verification of the assessment records of earlier years had observed that assessee en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ltural income of Rs. 1,90,13,500/-.The assessee has also claimed expenditure on the said agriculture activity amounting to Rs. 91,26,480/- and accordingly, declared net agricultural income of Rs. 98,87,020/-. The AO vide assessment order dated 19.12.2018 has adopted Rs. 49,43,510/- i.e. 50% of the net agriculture Income amounting to Rs. 98,87,020/- as 'Income from Other Sources' and accordingly, computed the balance as agricultural income amounting to Rs. 49,43,510/- only instead of net agriculture Income of Rs. 98,87,020/- as declared by the assessee in his return of income. We could not understand that on the one hand both the authorities below have observed that the claim of agricultural income is not acceptable/correctness of the claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on: Provided that where by virtue of any provision of this Act income tax is to be charged in respect of income of a period other than the previous year, income tax shall be charged accordingly". Thus, a plain reading of above clearly shows that the charge of tax is in respect of the total income. Agricultural income is exempt u/s 10(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which falls in Chapter-III of the Act. Heading of the Chapter-III is "incomes which do not form part of total income". Thus, the item of income specified in section 10(1) of the Act or Chapter-III of the Act would not be part of the total income. There cannot be a charge of tax u/s 4(1) of the Act other than the total income. We could not understand how by reducing the Net a....