9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 640 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Unexplained investment made in one piece of land - Proceedings initiated U/s. 147 of the Act was upheld by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the source - AO only disputed the sales bills was not produce by the assessee - HELD THAT - It is a true fact that the assessee is having 60 Bigha of land. This fact is also accepted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that assessee produced Jamabandi and Girdawari only but no bill of agriculture produced/crop were produced. The A.O. only disputed the sales bills was not produce by the assessee. This objection of the A.O. was not correct because in the rural area the crops was sales in village and sometime crops sales in Mandi but bills was not kept by the farmers. CIT(A) had given relief of ₹ 2,00,000/- to the assessee on the basis of documents and material placed on record. The ld. CIT(A) has passed a speaking order discussing all the facts and circumstances of the case. No new facts has been brought on record by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere or deviate from the findings so recorded by the ld. CIT(A), hence, we uphold the same. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order passed by the assessing authority and sustained by the CIT(A). 2. Failure to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavits. 3. Acceptance of submissions and evidence by the CIT(A). 4. Legality of addition made for the payment of consideration in the preceding year. 5. Rejection of the entire amount explained by the assessee. 6. Legality of reopening the assessment under Sections 147/148 of the IT Act. 7. Legality of charging interest. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Order: The appellant contended that the order passed by the assessing authority and sustained by the CIT(A) is "illegal and against the law." The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had completed the assessment under Sections 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, determining the total income of the assessee at ?4,00,000 under Section 69 and ?2,72,128 as agricultural income. The CIT(A) provided partial relief by deleting an addition of ?2,00,000. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere or deviate from the findings recorded. 2. Failure to Cross-Examine the Deponent: The appellant argued that the CIT(A) and the assessing authority failed to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavits submitted, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s. Mehta Parekh & Co. The Tribunal noted that the affidavit submitted by the assessee was not cross-examined by the AO or CIT(A). However, the Tribunal did not find this sufficient to overturn the CIT(A)'s decision, as the affidavit alone did not substantiate the claims without corroborative evidence. 3. Acceptance of Submissions and Evidence: The appellant claimed that the CIT(A) should have accepted the submissions and evidence presented during the hearing. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had considered the submissions, additional evidence, remand report, and rejoinder filed by the appellant. The CIT(A) found that the balance sheets provided were not part of regular books of accounts and were unreliable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the CIT(A) had passed a "speaking order" discussing all facts and circumstances. 4. Legality of Addition for Payment in Preceding Year: The appellant argued that the addition made and sustained during the year was not in accordance with the law, as the proof of payment was made in the preceding year. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had given relief of ?2,00,000 to the assessee based on the documents and material placed on record. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's agricultural income and KCC loan were considered, and the remaining ?2,00,000 addition was justified. 5. Rejection of Entire Amount Explained: The appellant contended that the entire amount was explained but rejected without assigning any reason. The Tribunal found that the AO had made a detailed observation that the assessee produced Jamabandi and Girdawari but no bills of sale of agricultural products. The AO allowed the benefit of agricultural income and KCC loan to the extent of ?4.17 lakh. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the explanation provided by the assessee was not supported by reliable evidence. 6. Legality of Reopening Assessment: The appellant argued that the reopening of the assessment under Sections 147/148 of the IT Act was illegal. The Tribunal observed that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 were upheld by the CIT(A) because the assessee failed to explain the source of ?5,17,000 investment. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. 7. Legality of Charging Interest: The appellant claimed that the charging of interest was illegal and against the law. However, the Tribunal did not find any specific arguments or evidence presented by the appellant to substantiate this claim. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, implicitly rejecting the appellant's contention regarding the charging of interest. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s order in all respects. The stay application filed by the assessee became infructuous as the appeal was decided on merit. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 07th September 2021.
|
