Tax authorities appropriately assessed disputed incomes as business income due to the appellant's failure to substantiate claims.

ORDER

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.1 Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [CIT(A)] on 25.05.2022 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act on 30.03.2016. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: -

1. The assessing officer and the CIT (Appeals) erred in not considering the assessee as Power Agent.

2. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal erred in making additions as profits from land dealing on 21 cents land near agricultural university property sold as poer agent and the litigation proceedings pending in the civil court in Coimbatore.

3. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal erred in making addition on the advances received as per MOU before the possession and registration of the sale is given on the Ponniyarajapuram property and also without considering the second claim pending before the civil court in Coimbatore

4. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal erred in relying on a bogus fax and letter which has no evidentiary value as per facts and law.

5. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal erred in treating the loan as undisclosed income.

6. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal erred in arriving the capital gain working on Coonoor property sold.

7. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal also not considered the agriculture income and treating the income at nil without considering the agriculture expenses.

8. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal erred in not cosndiering the sources taxed by the same assessing officer for the assessment year 2009-10 and 2011-12 which is plenty available was also not considered.

1.2 As is evident, five issues fall for our consideration i.e., (i) Agriculture income; (ii) Addition of Loans; (iii) Computation of profit on sale of land; (iv) Computation of Capital Gains on Coonoor Property; (v) Profit on Sale of Land at Ponnaiarajapuram.

1.3 The Ld. AR advanced arguments and filed written submissions supporting the case of the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, supported the findings given in the assessment order as well as in the appellate order. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The assessee being resident individual is stated to be engaged as dealer in immoveable properties.

1.4 The assessee was searched u/s 132 on 27.11.2013 wherein certain documents / papers were seized on the basis of which impugned assessment was made. A notice u/s 153A was issued on 26.12.2014. The copies of impounded material were also handed over to the assessee. The assessee remained non-compliant and accordingly, penalty u/s 271F was also imposed by Ld. AO. Finally, the assessee filed return of income only on 02.01.2016 declaring ‘nil’ income and admitting agricultural income of Rs.3.50 Lacs. During the course of assessment proceedings, statement of the assessee was also recorded u/s 131 on various dates. 2. Agriculture Income

2.1 The assessee stated that it had no income except for agricultural income of Rs.3.50 Lacs out of agricultural activities carried out by him in agricultural land in his name at Ravathur Pirivu and Yelaneli Village, Coonoor Taluk. However, the assessee could not file working of agricultural income except for filing of Mandi receipts for sale of agricultural produce. The gross receipts as per these Mandi receipts were Rs.5.50 Lacs. The assessee filed bills for expenditure of Rs.2.01 Lacs and worked out net agricultural income of Rs.3.49 Lacs. This income was stated to have been utilized by the assessee entirely for his personal drawings as per his statement u/s 131.

2.2 To verify the genuineness of the Mandi receipts, summons u/s 131 were issued to the 3 parties. However, the same was returned un-served as the parties could not be located at the given addresses. The field enquiries revealed that there