9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with an Income Tax Appeal filed u/s 260-A of the Income Tax Act, concerning substantial questions of law related to the presumption u/s 132 (4A) of the Act, ownership presumption u/s 292C, and the assessment of agricultural income. Presumption u/s 132 (4A) of Act: The ITAT dismissed the appeal of the revenue, holding that the presumption u/s 132 (4A) is limited to documents/material seized during a search and not available for framing assessment. The ITAT's decision was based on the provisions of Sec.292C inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, allowing the use of material found in possession/control of any person in assessment proceedings. However, the ITAT found the presumption under Section 292C (1) to be rebuttable, and the assessee failed to rebut the ownership presumption against him. Assessment of Agricultural Income: The ITAT considered the agricultural income issue, noting that the assessee had provided the intikhab-Khatauni before the AO, indicating ownership of agricultural land and income from the sale of sugarcane. The ITAT accepted the income of Rs. 1 lac from agriculture based on the yield of sugarcane and sale consideration per quintal. Analysis of Orders: The CIT (A) and ITAT examined the diary seized during search operations, with the AO using it to determine undisclosed income. However, the CIT (A) did not agree with the AO's assessment, and the ITAT found the diary to be a general household record, not exclusively related to business transactions. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s findings, stating that the explanations provided by the assessee were not adequately considered by the AO, leading to no undisclosed income being established. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the Income Tax Appeal, affirming the findings of fact by the CIT (A) and ITAT regarding the diary entries and agricultural income. The Court held that these findings did not raise substantial questions of law as framed in the appeal memo, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
