9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial available on record . (ii). That the Ld. appellate authority has erred in law in confirming the additions of Rs. 5,60,117/- In the income of the appellant on account of opening balance, without recording the totally contrary to the facts of the case the same is liable to be finding supported by law, facts, reason and Evidences and being deleted. (iii). That the Ld. A.O. committed a serious mistake in disallowing the agricultural income of Rs. 1,90,500/- declared by appellant and making the addition of the same in the income of the appellant as an income from undisclosed sources, ignoring the entire material available on record tiled by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings in support of the claim/contention of the agricultural income such as proof of ownership of agricultural land, i.e. copy of Jama Bandi and Khasra Girdawari, affidavits and statement of witnesses. Copies of the same are also enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. (iv). That the Learned Appellate Authority also erred in law in confirming of Rs. l,90,500/- which is the agricultural income of the appellant earned by him from agricultural land in his native ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is situated in Village Pipli, Distt. Sonepat which is fully irrigated and is capable of producing full two crops in a year being land of A Category and full of fertility. These facts were narrated by the appellant in the letters dated 18.10.2007 which is already on the record with copies of Khasra Girdawari duly issued by Halqa Patwari and which was totally ignored by the A.O. as well as by the CIT and copies of the same are enclosed herewith for your kind perusal and consideration. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.l,90,500/- as income of the appellant from un-disclosed sources is totally. bad III law and is liable to be deleted. (vii). That the Ld. Commissioner ought to have accepted the agricultural income of Rs. 1,90,500/- earned and shown from 6 ½ acres agricultural land by the appellant in the light of his own observation and said finding. (viii). That the Ld.A.O. has also erred in law in making the addition of Rs. 40,000/- in the income of the appellant on account of low house- hold drawings as against the house-hold drawings of Rs. 82,470/- made by the appellant during the period under reference and the Ld.CIT{Appeals] illegally con-firme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts in deleting the addition of Rs.l,50,000/- on account of unsecured loan from assessee's wife for which he could not prove the genuineness of source of investment by his wife before the A.O. (ii). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,05,000/- (on account of genuineness of bank withdrawal by the assessee for investment in purchase of agriculture land for which he could not furnish any documentary evidence before the A.O. (iii). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 200000/- on account of genuineness of friendly loan from Attar Singh for investment in purchase of agriculture land for which he could not furnish any documentary evidence regarding creditworthiness of the creditor before the A.O. (iv). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CJT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 250000/- on account of genuineness of friendly loan from Sh. Ganga Ram for investment in purchase of agriculture land for which he could not furnish any documentary evidence regardin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining to the A.Y. 2003-04 as aforesaid, and finding that I.T.A. Number and year of assessment i.e. 2003-04 missing from the title and body of the order dated 30.04.2010 (Supra), the assessee promptly moved a Misc. Application to include the ITA No.517/Del/2009 pertaining to the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2003-04 also to be included in the body of the aforesaid Tribunal order. According to the assessee, the non-inclusion of the I.T.A. number and A.Y. 2003-04 was because of typographical error and so it constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. However, the said plea of the assessee did not find favour with the Tribunal; so the Tribunal dismissed the same vide order dated 14.12.2012 holding that since ground nos.1 & 2 relating to the addition of Rs. 5,60,117/- has not been adjudicated and decided by the Tribunal in the said order the prayer of the assessee was turned down. While passing the said order in the said M.A, the Tribunal cited the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs. Vijai Int. Udyog reported in 152 ITR 111 (SC), wherein it was observed that when there are cross-appeals pending for the same Assessment Year, then the same should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Tribunal had dealt with three issues regarding (a) whether the assessee, an employee of the MCD had agricultural income which he claimed; (b) what should be the reasonable household expenses and (c) whether the opening balances reflected for each assessment year can be treated as income from undisclosed source as held by both CIT(A) and AO? 11. The issue of agricultural income has been dealt by the Tribunal in the aforesaid order. Vide Para 4 of the said order, the Tribunal has held as under :- "4. Since similar grounds have been taken by the assessee in all the years, we are going to dispose the appeals for all the years by this consolidated order. From the record, we found that assessee's claim for agricultural income was not accepted by the lower authorities and the same was treated as income from other sources. The assessee has utilized such agricultural income for explaining the source of investment in the land. By treating the income from agriculture as income from other sources, the CIT(A) has deleted the separate addition made on account of acquisition of land by accepting assessee's contention that this fund was available to him for making further inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the instant assessment year and subsequent years that the assessee has earned agricultural income in those years and assessee's agricultural income has to be calculated for his own land at Rs. 10,000/- per bigha and Rs. 5,000/- per bigha on land taken on lease by the assessee. The ld DR, could not bring to our notice any change in facts during the year under consideration, so in the light of the said finding and direction, following suit, we direct the AO that after verifying the exact holding of land by assessee and the land taken on lease/rent basis, rework out the agricultural income of assessee. Accordingly, AO is directed to treat agricultural income as having been earned by the assessee, to the extent computed in terms of above direction. 13. The next issue is against the addition of Rs. 1,27,981/- on account of low household withdrawals which issue has again been adjudicated by the Tribunal as per order dated 30.04.2010 (supra) wherein the Tribunal has directed vide Para 9(supra) the AO to accept Rs. 72,000/- as reasonable household expenses for the year under consideration and do the recomputation of income. We concur with the said direction of the Tribunal and direct t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13,21,000/- on 25.10.2002. The AO asked the assessee to explain source of his income for purchase of the said land. So the land costs amounting to Rs. 17.73 lakhs + stamp duty, i.e, total Rs. 18,05,000/= needed to be explained by the assessee. The assessee explained that a sum of Rs. 8.50 lakhs was invested by the assessee's wife, Smt. Santosh Devi i.e. Rs. 1.50 lakhs from her past savings of several years from income of animal husbandry and Rs. 7 lakhs of gift amount which she has received from her mother, Smt. Bharpai Devi. Another amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was received by the assessee from Shri Attar Singh in cash on 16.08.2002, another friend, Shri Ganga Ram gave him a loan of Rs. 2.5 lakhs ; and assessee has invested Rs. 5.05 lakhs from his past savings of several years withdrawn from the saving bank account and also cash lying with the assessee in his house from his agricultural land. 18. The said explanation of the source of income by the assessee was not found acceptable to the AO. So he recorded a finding that the said amount as emanating from undisclosed source and treated it as assessee's undisclosed income. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, the ld. CIT (A) however ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him, and he has tried to explain the source of fund as aforestated. However, we find that AO has not accepted the version of assessee in this respect. So, what the ld CIT(A) has done was that out of the addition of Rs. 18,05,000/- made by AO in respect to purchase of properties, only Rs. 7 lakhs has been found to be explained by the assessee to the satisfaction of the ld. CIT (A). The other claims of the assessee as to his source for purchasing the land costing Rs. 17.73 + stamp duty= i.e. Rs. 18,05,000/- lakhs have been arrived by the Ld CIT(A) by bringing the amount added by the AO, which in turn has been confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) for the preceding and this assessment year to justify the source for purchase of land as stated in para 17 above The grievance of the revenue is that assessee's explanation of source of Rs. 5,05,000/- have been deleted by the CIT(A) without a whisper about the same in the impugned order. Likewise, the other three grounds of revenue are in respect of deletion of Rs. 1.50 lakhs which the assessee's wife has given to the assessee; And deletion of Rs. 2 lakhs from Shri Attar Singh; and deletion of Rs. 2.5 lakhs from Shri Ganga Ram. Here we should note that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
