9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to additions made on account of agricultural produce sale proceeds and low household withdrawals for two different assessees. Issue 1: Agricultural produce sale proceeds The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,25,008 as agricultural produce sale proceeds under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated the claim of sale of agricultural produce as unexplained cash credit based on an inquiry from a ginning factory partner. The CIT(A upheld this addition. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer did not allow cross-examination of the partner and disregarded positive evidence of agricultural production. The appellant had shown agricultural income in previous years, duly accepted by the revenue. The tribunal noted the appellant's landholding and past accepted income, concluding that the onus to prove the transaction as bogus was not met by the Assessing Officer. The tribunal deleted the addition and directed the Assessing Officer to treat the receipt as part of agricultural income. Issue 2: Low household withdrawals The addition of Rs. 60,000 for low household withdrawals was made without specific evidence of expenses or family size. The appellant contended that some expenses were met from agricultural produce and that the son also showed withdrawals for household expenses. Citing relevant case law, the tribunal held that under section 69C, the Assessing Officer must first prove the expenditure before shifting the onus to the assessee. As the Assessing Officer failed to discharge this onus, the tribunal deleted the addition. Both parties agreed that similar views should be taken for the other assessee, leading to the allowance of the appeals for both assessees. This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad, delivered by Shri P.K. Bansal, Accountant Member, on 24-07-2009, addressed issues of additions on agricultural produce sale proceeds and low household withdrawals for two assessees. The tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to prove the transactions as bogus and deleted the additions, directing the Assessing Officer to treat the receipts as part of agricultural income. The tribunal emphasized the importance of discharging the onus of proof before making such additions under the Income Tax Act.
|
