Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 915 - ITAT HYDERABADAgricultural land - no documentary evidence to prove that the agricultural land was in the name of the firm - Held that:- As rightly pointed out by the Ld. D.R. the assessee had sufficient time, atleast before the CIT(A), to prove that it owns agricultural lands and carried on agricultural activity in large scale which could have yielded more than ₹ 18 lakhs income. No evidence whatsoever was furnished either before the A.O. or CIT(A). Even before the Tribunal, no evidence whatsoever was produced. When A.O. pointed out mistakes in the Tak Patties etc., the assessee could have given proper explanation before CIT(A) with regard to mismatch of numbers in Tak patties and could have obtained proper explanation from commission agent about use of new Tak patty numbers for earlier period. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and supported by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills and others (1954 (10) TMI 12 - SUPREME Court ), the A.O. is duty bound to give a proper opportunity of being heard. But it does not lessen the burden of the assessee to support its stand atleast before the First Appellate Authority. In the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) categorically observed that even after 4 ˝ years the assessee did not furnish even an iota of evidence to contradict the stand taken by the A.O. Though some additional evidence is sought to be produced before the Tribunal, the explanation for not filing the same before CIT(A) was not convincing. Even otherwise the evidence filed along with petition under Rule 29 of I.T. Rules is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the assessee-firm might have earned agricultural income of such magnitude by farming dry land, that too in F.Y. 2007-08 when certificates of Tahsildars indicate that income would be less than what was declared by assessee. Under these circumstances, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) and therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee-firm.
|