9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 968X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has raised the following substantial questions of law, for consideration:- "1. Whether the ITAT was legally correct in confirming the decision of the first appellate authority deleting the addition of Rs.17,87,500/- made u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 and directing the AO to assess the income of Rs.8,93,774/- as agricultural income ignoring the fact that no primary record of agricultural activities was available with the assessee to substantiate the agricultural income ? 2. Considering the ratio of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. R. Venkata Swamy Naidu (1956)29 ITR 529 (SC) whether the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in holding the alleged agricultural income genuine, although the assessee could not produce proper mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns no merit in the appeal of the Revenue. The ld. D.R. Although vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer but could not adduce any evidence which may prove that the facts involved in this A.Y. are different from the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05. Apparent is real. Onus is on the person who alleges apparent is not real. The income shown by the assessee is the revenue derived from the land which is situated in India and used for agricultural purposes. No iota of evidence to the contrary is brought on record. The assessee has incurred the expenditure in cash and has sold the agriculture produce in cash cannot be the basis to conclude that the assessee has not derived the agricultural income. The assessee is a private limited company a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee was not accepted. The AO added Rs.17,87,500/- declared by the assessee as agricultural income - exempt from income tax, as income of the assessee from other sources under Section 68 of the Act. 6. The CIT (A) considered the question of addition of Rs.17,87,500/- by AO under Section 68 of the Act and have recorded findings that if in the previous years the agricultural income from the same land on which agricultural crops were produced by the appellant was accepted, he could not have recorded findings that in the present assessment year in question, the income could not be treated as agricultural income for want of proof of records of fertilizer and chemicals and expenditures incurred on tube-well boring, construction of sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
