By TIOL News Service

BENGALURU, JAN 01, 2019: THE ISSUE IS - Whether AO can be blamed for non-consideration of neccesary evidences, when assessee himself has deliberately not appeared before AO or furnished those documents before completion of assessment. NO IS THE VERDICT.

Facts of the case:

THE assessee is an individual. He filed his return declaring total income of Rs 2,88,000/- and agricultural income of Rs 22,20,000/-. On selection of the case for scrutiny, notices came to be issued and the AO made various additions to assessee's income on account of agricultural income. On appeal, the CIT(A) partly accepted the contentions of assessee, while accepting 25% of the agricultural income declared by assessee. Questioning the same, the matter went before the Tribunal, whereby estimation made by AO in respect of agricultural income, was confirmed.

Challenging the same, the assessee's counsel contended that substantial material with regard to assessee's ownership of 15 acres of land and other relevant material pertaining to the same was not at all considered by the AO.

High Court held that,

++ the assessee has addressed a letter to the ITO with regard to production of various material before him. The same includes the RTC extracts for 15 acres of land, the lease agreement for the land in question and various other documents. On perusal of the same, it is found that the documents have been produced on Dec 31, 2007, whereas the order of AO was passed on Dec 28, 2007. There is even a noting in the order of AO that when the matter was listed on Dec 18, 2007, an adjournment was sought for upto Dec 24, 2007. However, on such date, neither the assessee appeared nor he complied with the requirements as per the communication. Secondly, the so-called material was not produced before the order was passed by the AO. Therefore, the AO cannot be blamed for non-consideration of the material, when the assessee has deliberately not appeared before the AO or furnished the documents;

++ even on perusal of the material, it would indicate that the RTC produced was for the year 2007-2008, which was not relatable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, even if such material would have to be reconsidered, the same would not aid the assessee, under any circumstances. For the said reasons, there is no reason as to why an additional opportunity should be granted to the assessee at this stage. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the estimation made by AO in accepting only 25% of the total 'agricultural income' declared by the assessee.

(See 2019-TIOL-08-HC-KAR-IT)