9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 04.01.2012, dismissing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2008-09 vide order dated 29.10.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount of Rs. 1,85,600/-, disclosed as sale of groundnut, as agriculture income. The same stood confirmed in appeal for the reason that the assessee could not substantiate its case, which remained the same as before the A.O., in any manner. Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Without doubt, the onus to prove its return, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any stage. It is, we may clarify, only the additional income of Rs. 1.88 lacs, claimed to be agricultural income in-as-much as it is on account of sale of Niran (also known as 'Khol'), that is in dispute. As such, the assessee's claim with regard to agricultural income (for the balance amount of Rs. 1,85,600/-, realized through by way of sale of groundnut) is not in dispute and, therefore, the evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
