9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s erred in making addition u/s 69 of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained investment in the purchase of land. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. She had filed her return of income on 19.05.2009 declaring an income of Rs. 2,03,680/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the account, the learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee has shown short term capital gain and claimed exemption u/s 54B of the I.T. Act. The assessee had purchased land on 05.02.2005 comprised Survey No.112/2 measuring 9 guntas. This land was acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) on 18.06.2007. The assessee had rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 32,55,195/-. Thus according to the Assessing Officer the assessee is unable to disclose the source of the investment. Accordingly he made an addition of Rs. 32,55,195 which is the difference between the ultimate investments made by the assessee in the two properties, minus the compensation received by the assessee. Appeal to the CIT (A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 6. Before us the assessee filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence. She sought to place on record copies of the Revenue record and copies of a cheque received from M/s Exora Business Park (P) Ltd. She also intended to place on record a certificate from the Gramothan Resource Centre indicating that the wild grass standing in the land of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther contended that the assessee has claimed before the CIT (A) that investment in the land was met out of the compensation received from M/s Exora Business Park (P) Ltd. He also contended that the addition of Rs. 32,55,195/- has been made u/s 69 of the I.T. Act but the ingredients of section 69 have not been fulfilled on the facts of the present case. Therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot make any such addition. 8. On the other hand the learned DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not made any mention of section 69. The addition was made on account of unexplained investment. Representative of the assessee failed to give any explanation what to talk of plausible explanation about the source of Rs. 32,55,195/-. As far as the denial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears. If it was used for agricultural purpose, then the exemption u/s 54B would be admissible to the assessee. The contention of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee failed to produce the evidence indicating the user of the land. On the other hand the assessee has submitted copy of the Revenue record maintained by the Revenue Officers of the State Govt. This record appears to have been filed before the learned CIT (A), because the first appellate authority has called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and such report was submitted vide letter dated 17.03.2012. Copy of the report is available in the record. In Paragraph No.4 of the remand report, the learned Assessing Officer has discussed this issue. On due consideration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a permanent or temporary nature ? (g) Whether the land, though entered in revenue records, had never been actually used for agriculture, that is, it had never been ploughed or tilled? Whether the owner meant or intended to use it for agricultural purposes ? (h) Whether the land was situate in a developed area? Whether its physical characteristics, surrounding situation and use of the lands in the adjoining area were such as would indicate that the land was agricultural ? (i) Whether the land itself was developed by plotting and providing roads and other facilities ? (j) Whether there were any previous sales of portions of the land for non-agricultural use ? (k) Whether permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee. The assessee has sought to file copy of the cheque which was received from this concern. On an analysis of the evidence produced before us, we are of the view that it is to be investigated as to why this concern has paid this much of amount to the assessee. A complete investigation is required on this issue. If it is part of compensation for the land which was acquired by KIADB, then no addition probably would be made, but the chain of circumstances is not complete on the record. The Assessing Officer in the remand report did not accept this contention on the ground that the letter written by him returned unserved on the payer. Assessing Officer could have used his statutory powers fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
