Verification of Genuineness of Agricultural Income of more than Rs. 1 crores shown in ITR filed for AY 2007-08 to 2015-16

Verification of Genuineness of Agricultural Income of more than Rs. 1 crores shown in the Income Tax Return filed by the assesses for AY 2007-08 to 2015-16

Central Board of Direct Taxes
F. No. DGIT(S)/DIT(S)-3/AST/PIL/2015-16

Dated: 10/03/2016

Verification of Genuineness of Agricultural Income shown in the Income Tax Return filed by the assesses for AY 2007-08 to 2015-16 – reg.

The CBDT has issued the above letter in which it has pointed out that several assesses have declared income from agriculture of more than Rs. 1 Crore in the income tax return filed for earlier years especially from AY 2011-12 to 2013-14.

The CBDT has also stated that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is pending before Hon’ble Patna High Court wherein concerns have been raised that a few assesses may be engaged in routing their unaccounted or illegal money in the garb of agricultural income thereby not only claiming exemptions on such income but also engaged in the money laundering activities.

Since agricultural income is only used for rate purposes, it is further stated that in a few such high value cases, taxpayers may have inadvertently made data entry errors while filling up the fields for agricultural income.

Accordingly, CBDT has directed Assessing Officers as under:

(i) Verify whether the taxpayer may have made a data entry error while filling up the return.

(ii) Wherever scrutiny assessment is completed, AO may provide feedback based on assessment records.

(iii) In cases where proceedings u/s 143(3) are pending, assessing officers may be informed to thoroughly verify the claims.

Assessing Officers have been requested to send a status report in this regard after verification on urgent basis to this Directorate General Systems before 20th March 2016 so that correct figures can be reported for the claims of agricultural income to the Hon’ble Patna High Court.

• ITAT allows exemption of Rs. 25 lakhs u/s 10(10A) to non-government employees
• PCIT has revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 over the cases passed by the NFAC or the JAO
• Appellate court interfering with MACT finding must undertake reappreciation of evidence
• When delay is not huge & involves huge monetary liability, lenient approach to be taken
• EoGM of company can not ratify diversion of fund raised by preferential issue – SC