TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limiting the agricultural income to Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. The order of the CIT(A) confirming the AO s order is upheld as valid and in accordance with law. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 1047/Bang/2022 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2023 - Shri George George K. , Judicial Member And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu , Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri S. V. Ravishankar , Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar , JCIT ORDER Per: George George K. , J. M. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] - 11, Bangalore dated 12.10.2022. The relevant assessment year is 2014-15. 2. The solitary issue that was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and the balance amount of Rs.40,28,000/- (60,00,000 19,72,000) was treated as income under the head other sources . 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the view taken by the AO. The CIT(A) held that the agreement produced by the assessee itself is not creditworthy. It was held by the CIT(A) that the record of Rights and Pahani Form (RTC), shows the name of cultivator as the assessee and the name of Shri Ravi Kumar (lessee) did not figure anywhere. Further the RTC produced for the relevant period did not pertain to the entire land ownership but only with regard to one acre of land. The CIT(A) was of the view that there is nothing on record to suggest tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es . For this year the assessee has produced a lease agreement between the assessee and one Shri Ravi Kumar, The lease agreement is dated 18.11.1995. Though the lease agreement is dated 18.11.1995 in the past years assessee has not brought the same to the notice of the AO. The assessee has not produced any proof to show what was the agricultural activities carried on by the lessee to have provided the assessee a sum of Rs.60,00,000/-. There is no evidence submitted by the assessee that he was in receipt of huge agricultural income of Rs.60,00,000/- from 19.72 acres (assessee share 50% of 39.44 acres). In view of the aforesaid reasoning, we are of the view that the AO was justified in limiting the agricultural income to Rs. 1,00,000/- per ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
