TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession of agricultural land, and the evidence led for proving that agricultural operations were carried out and crops were produced could not be disbelieved in the subsequent year, for want of primary evidence. The assessee was not required to submit proof of agricultural operations every year, in the absence of any material, which may suggest that the agricultural operations were stopped or was not carried out in the relevant period. There was no evidence to establish that the assessee has sold the agricultural land or that the assessee had stooped the agricultural operations. Further, assessee as a Private Company was maintaining regular books of accounts as required under the Companies Act, which were also audited and accepted in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was justified in holding the alleged agricultural income genuine, although the assessee could not produce proper material no prove that it had earned any agricultural income during the year under consideration ? ? 4. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the submissions, and held that once the department has accepted the agricultural income returned by the assessee during the previous assessment years namely A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05, for which the assessments were made under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 of the Act, no interference could be made in the order of CIT (A) for deleting the additions for the AY 2005-06. The ITAT thereafter recorded following findings of fact:- "We have carefully considered the rival su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis to conclude that the assessee has not derived the agricultural income. The assessee is a private limited company and has maintained regular books of accounts as required under the Companies Act. The Profit Loss Account and Balance Sheet has been prepared and approved in the General Body meeting of the Company. The entries in the books are not proved to be bogus. The Income-tax Act does not prohibit the assessee to incur the expenditure in cash. Even there is no provision under the Income Tax Act debarring the assessee from selling agricultural crops in cash. No addition can be sustained merely on the basis of the suspicion however is strong it may be. We, therefore, are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for want of proof of records of fertilizer and chemicals and expenditures incurred on tube-well boring, construction of store house, levelling of field etc. The ITAT has confirmed the findings recorded by CIT (A). Even if each assessment year is treated to be a separate unit, the findings in respect of previous years based on the record of title and possession of agricultural land, and the evidence led for proving that agricultural operations were carried out and crops were produced could not be disbelieved in the subsequent year, for want of primary evidence. The assessee was not required to submit proof of agricultural operations every year, in the absence of any material, which may suggest that the agricultural operations were stopped or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
