ANNAKKALANJIYAM MATHIVATHANAM,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-19(2), CHENNAI

ITA 1156/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Annakkalanjiyam Mathivathanan against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi, which had disallowed the agricultural income claimed as exempt by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer had initially treated the entire agricultural income of Rs. 55,10,422 as non-exempt due to lack of sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the claim. The assessee contested this decision, providing various documents and arguing that similar claims had been accepted in previous years. The ITAT, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, partly accepted the assessee's claim, recognizing Rs. 51,10,422 as agricultural income and disallowing Rs. 4,00,000 as non-exempt income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713094 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Shri. Dilip Kumar & CO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH KUMAR
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘’सी’’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु क ुमार गिरि, न्यागयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा ,लेखा सदस्य क े समक्ष । BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1156/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Annakkalanjiyam Mathivathanan, No.91/15, East Jones Road, Chennai-600 015. [PAN: AAGPM1853P] v. Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward-19(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Girish Kumar Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 12.09.2024 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18. 2. The registry has noted that the appeal has been filed after delay of ‘145’ days and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit, we are satisfied that there is sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, we condone the delay of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1156/Chny/2025(AY 2017-18) Annakkalanjiyam Mathivathanan :: 2 :: ‘145’ days and proceed to adjudicate the grounds of both appeals raised by the assessee. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: Briefly stated the facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee, an individual, filed return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 10-10-2017 with taxable income of Rs.31,73,930/- excluding the agricultural income claimed as exempt amounting to Rs.55,01,422/-. The Return of Income was processed u/s143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for \"Limited Scrutiny\" in order to verify the agricultural income earned by the assessee during the year. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Income tax Act was issued on 23-08-2018. In response to the notice issued by the AO, the assessee has filed the relevant details though e-proceedings. During the A.Y.2017-18 the assessee has claimed agricultural income of Rs.55,10,422/-which accordingly to the AO was very high compared to earlier A.Ys. The AO has observed that as per the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shri. Dilip Kumar & CO overruling its earlier judgment holding that the onus of providing that the income is exempt lies on the assessee and not on the tax department. Therefore, the assessee was asked by the AO to file all documentary evidence in support of earning the income from agriculture activities in order to support the claim as exempt income. The assessee did not Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1156/Chny/2025(AY 2017-18) Annakkalanjiyam Mathivathanan :: 3 :: produce the proof for the sale of agricultural products and the agricultural development expenses, Further details of the utilization of the income was also not filed along with cash.flow statement for the relevant assessment year. The details of yield per acre of the entire Agricultural land owned by the assessee has not substantiated with evidences. In the absence of proper explanation/evidences provided by the assessee, the entire agricultural income of Rs.55,10,422/- was treated by the AO as non-exempt income and brought to tax as Income from Other Sources. 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. AR of the assessee contended that the assessee during the assessment proceedings has filed detailed documents vide respose dated 23.12.2019 vide Notice ID 100022362701. In facts, the assessee has submitted Ponpadi Lands List, Alamelumangapuram Property list, Sale Deed dated 24.03.2006 etc (Page 3-94 of Paper Book). The also filed detailed submission and documents dated 19.08.2024 before the ld.CIT(A). 5. The ld. CIT(A), upon hearing the assessee has passed following order as under: Having considered the factual matrix of the case, I find that the above mentioned additions were made by the AO as there was no response from the assessee to various notices/SCN issued by the AO. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had asked the assessee to furnish the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1156/Chny/2025(AY 2017-18) Annakkalanjiyam Mathivathanan :: 4 :: proof and details of agricultural income disclosed of Rs.55,10,422/-by the assessee which was not furnished by the assessee. I also find that the assessee did not file any submissions supported by proper evidence along with a petition under Rule 46A for admission of evidence in the appellate proceedings. The assessee has not controverted the findings of the AO supported by proper evidence. I also find that the additions made by the AO are based on solid evidence which was confronted to the assessee by the AO and the additions are made as per the provisions of law. No evidence whatsoever has been filed by the assessee to substantiate and butfress the grounds of appeal. The assessee has not produced any evidence proving the ownership of agricultural land, purchase of fertilizers, seeds pesticides etc and proof of sale of agricultural produce. Therefore, the agricultural income of Rs. 55,10,422/- claimed as exempt by the assessee remains unsubstantiated. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned and speaking order of the AO. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 55,10,422/- made by the AO is confirmed. 6. Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee contended that the assessee has filed necessary documents before the lower authorities. The assessee is by agricultural activity getting Teak (Tekku), coconut (Thennai), mango (Ma) & paddy (Nei) wherein vendor and purchaser names are mentioned. Also Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1156/Chny/2025(AY 2017-18) Annakkalanjiyam Mathivathanan :: 5 :: submitted agricultural land holdings. He also relied upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of her husband. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR for the revenue relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A) as held in para 7 page 6 of its order. She further contended that the assessee has not filed any evidence to justify the agricultural income. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record and Tribunal order in assessee’s husband case. We find from the paper book that there were agricultural activities on the land in question during FY 2016-17. The assessee owned agricultural land alongwith her husband and had been earning agricultural income, reporting in their return of income for several years. In AY 2016-17 net agricultural income was shown in the return of income as Rs.43,82,684/- which has been accepted by the revenue. The assessee during the assessment proceedings has filed detailed documents vide respose dated 23.12.2019 vide Notice ID 100022362701. We also note that the assessee has submitted before us Ponpadi Lands List, Alamelumangapuram Property list, Sale Deed dated 24.03.2006 etc (Page 3-94 of Paper Book). However, we are of the view that agricultural income claimed of Rs.55,10,422/- is on little on higher side hence we restrict it to Rs.51,10,422/- as agricultural income and disallow Rs.4,00,000/- as non- exempt income brought to tax. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1156/Chny/2025(AY 2017-18) Annakkalanjiyam Mathivathanan :: 6 :: 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the 28th day of July, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- (एस.आर.रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (मनु क ुमाि गिरि) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चेन्नई/Chennai, ददनांक/Dated: 28th July, 2025. KB/- 1. अपीलार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. विभागीयप्रविविवि/DR 5. गार्डफाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "