9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of complete day-to-day details having been maintained by the assessee, CIT(A) has already sustained the addition of Rs.1 lakh - Even if the theory of peak credit is applied, then also, the addition will not exceed Rs.1 lakh – there was no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. Deletion of agricultural income made - Failure to give proof of land holding and sale bills of agricultural produce – Held that:- The assessee did not give any explanation with regard to his land holding or any evidence for the agricultural income - He simply stated that the AO is not justified to reject the agricultural income declared by the assessee and the same was simply accepted by the CIT(A) - the assessee did not furnish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 - - - Dated:- 9-5-2014 - Shri G. D. Agrawal And Shri A. D. Jain,JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR. For the Respondent : Mr. Majeedullah and Mr. Anil Kumar, FCAs. ORDER Per G. D. Agrawal, VP : ITA No.2631/Del/2013 :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi dated 22nd February, 2013 for the AY 2007-08. 2. Ground No.1 of the Revenue s appeal reads as under:- The ld.CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.18,51,940/- by ignoring the facts that during the assessment proceedings the assessee has failed to produce any supporting evidence regarding the source of cash deposited in the bank. 3. The facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that learned CIT(A) gave no reason for reducing the addition to Rs.1 lakh on adhoc basis. She, therefore, submitted that the order of learned CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, relied upon the order of learned CIT(A) and he referred to the assessee s bank accounts and pointed out that cash deposit and withdrawal were of few thousands every time. He pointed out that there were frequent deposits and withdrawals. He also referred to the balance and further pointed out that the balance was always in thousands and never touched the figure of Rs.1 lakh. Learned CIT(A) has already sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.1 lakh, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) in this regard. The same is sustained and ground No.1 of the Revenue s appeal is rejected. 7. Ground No.2 of the Revenue s appeal reads as under:- The ld.CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.55,400/- by ignoring the facts that assessee has failed to give proof of land holding and sale bills of agricultural produce against the agricultural income claimed by the assessee. 8. From the assessment order, it is evident that the assessee has declared agricultural income of Rs.55,400/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to give the proof of land holding and also the sale bills of agricultural produce. No such detail was produced. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee did not furnish any details with regard to his agricultural holding or any evidence for earning of agricultural income. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs.55,400/-. The assessee has not furnished any iota of evidence to support the agricultural income claimed by him. He has not even given the details of agricultural land owned by him, if any. In view of the above, we reverse the order of learned CIT(A) in this regard and restore that of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, ground No.2 of the Revenue s appeal is allowed. ITA No.2632/Del/2013 :- 10. In this appeal by the Revenue, following grounds have been raised:- 1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the penalty cannot be sustained since the quantum additions has been deleted and accordingly, the penalty levied by the AO is cancelled. 12. After considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case, we agree with the finding of learned CIT(A) with regard to addition of Rs.19,51,940/- because in respect of such addition, the assessee has given explanation that the deposit was relating to assessee s business receipt. Admittedly, the assessee had income from business. Though in the quantum appeal learned CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.1 lakh on adhoc basis, in the penalty appeal, he has arrived at the conclusion that on such lump sum estimated addition, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not warranted. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
