ITAT Chandigarh: Ownership of Land Not Mandatory to Claim Agriculture Income

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Chandigarh has recently determined that owning land in one's name is not a

By: :  Anjali Verma
By :  Legal Era
Update: 2023-06-30 14:00 GMT
trueasdfstory

ITAT Chandigarh: Ownership of Land Not Mandatory to Claim Agriculture Income The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Chandigarh has recently determined that owning land in one's name is not a prerequisite for agriculturists to claim agricultural income. The key issue in the case revolved around the assessee's claim of agriculture income amounting to ₹2,50,000. The...


ITAT Chandigarh: Ownership of Land Not Mandatory to Claim Agriculture Income

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Chandigarh has recently determined that owning land in one's name is not a prerequisite for agriculturists to claim agricultural income.

The key issue in the case revolved around the assessee's claim of agriculture income amounting to ₹2,50,000. The necessary supporting documents, including a copy of Jamabandi (land record), Kisan Pass Book, and other relevant papers, were submitted to substantiate the claim.

The Assessing Officer (AO), however, denied the claim on the grounds that the land was registered in the name of the assessee's father, not the assessee. The AO argued that the agricultural income should have been assessed in the name of the landowner. This decision was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), affirming the addition made by the AO.

Sanjay Garg (Judicial), the sole member of the bench, carefully considered the arguments put forth by the assessee. He emphasised that the mere fact that the land was registered in the name of the assessee's father does not automatically invalidate the assessee's claim of agricultural income.

The assessee contended that it is possible to take the land on lease, and in this particular case, the land was registered in the name of the assessee's father, who did not declare any additional agriculture income. The assessee asserted that they were the ones cultivating the land and earning the agricultural income, and there was no dispute regarding the existence of the agricultural property or the cultivation activities.

Having carefully reviewed the arguments presented by the assessee, the Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities acted unjustifiably by making the addition to the assessee's income.

Tags:    

By: - Anjali Verma

By - Legal Era

Similar News