1999 (12) TMI 121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uring 11 bighas. The AO, however, held that the assessee having not furnished evidence it was not proved that the assessee held possession of land during the relevant year and that the documents furnished by the assessee only showed allotment of land on 11th April, 1991. The AO, accordingly, made the addition of Rs. 12,000 as assessee's income from other sources. 2. Aggrieved thereby the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the addition as mentioned above. Hence aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records. 4. The Revenue has raised the only one ground of appeal disputing the learned Dy. CIT(A) holding that the unproved agric .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he has furnished a copy of the same placed at pp. 2 to 6 of assessee's paper book. He has also furnished a chart of agricultural income disclosed and accepted as placed on p 7 of the paper book and contended that in the subsequent assessment years for 1988-89 to 1992-93, the assessee showed his agricultural income at Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 20,000 which the Department has accepted. He has also contended that subsequent assessments wherein assessee's agricultural income has been accepted, have not been disturbed in appeal nor has been revised by now. He has also contended that no asset representing the income in respect of which addition was made, was found by AO and so also the addition made by AO was not sustainable. He has cited 106 Taxation 5 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... usehold expenditure. However, we find from record that the AO has not made addition under s. 69C on the ground of unexplained expenditure. We also find that the AO has not made any inquiry in respect of utilisation of the said income stated to be from agriculture. In the circumstances, there being neither assets representing income nor the addition by AO being under s. 69C, the deletion of addition by the learned Dy. CIT(A) is found to be quite justified. Even apart considering the contentions of the learned authorised representative of the assessee, as mentioned above, in respect of assessee's ground taken in cross-objection, as revealed from the copy of assessee's cross-objection, and also considering the fact that the assessee's agricult .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X