9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the revenue in this appeal is Rs. 3,36,000/- which is less than Rs. 4 lakh. 3. Ld. Counsel of the assessee placing reliance on the recent decision of CIT vs M/s P. S. Jain and Co. Dated 2.8.2010 in ITR 179/1991 submitted that the recent Board Instruction revising the monetary limit to Rs. 4 lakh for filing the appeal before the ITAT on income tax matters is very much applicable to the old references which are still pending undecided before the Tribunal. Ld. DR fairly accepted that the Board Instruction No. 5/2014 issued by CBDT on 10.7.2014 is applicable to the present case. 4. In view of above noted submissions of both the sides, we are inclined to hold that there is no justification to proceed with the cases having tax effect of less than Rs. 4 lakh. In view of above, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs M/s P. S. Jain & Co. (supra), we hold that this being a low tax effect case, the appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed and we dismiss the same in limine without going into merits. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable and is dismissed. Assessee's appeal in ITA 2762/Del/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... burden regarding impugned amount as per requirement of section 69 of the Act and it is well established that the assessee has only primary burden to prove the identity and genuineness and the sources of investment which was properly discharged by the assessee before the authorities below. 8. Ld. counsel has further drawn our attention to operative part of the impugned order of the CIT(A) and stated that the CIT(A) was not sure about the provisions in which the impugned amount was intended to be added to the income of the assessee as in the operative part of the order, the CIT(A) has mentioned that cash deposited in the bank account should be explained by the assessee, otherwise the same is added back as unexplained income u/s 69 or 69B of the Act. Ld. Counsel again took us through relevant operative part of the assessment order and submitted that even the AO was not sure about the treatment of alleged deposit as in the last sentence of operative para 3, he concludes that the sum of Rs. 2,80,000 deposited in SB account is treated as unexplained income/unexplained investment and is added to the returned income of the assessee. Ld. Counsel finally parted with the argument that the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee made unexplained investment of Rs. 2,80,000 out of the income of receipts of undisclosed sources which has not been discharged by the authorities below, therefore, the impugned addition is not sustainable. 11. On careful reading of the appellate order, we note that the CIT(A) has upheld the impugned addition with following findings and conclusion:- "6. I have considered the assessment order, the submission made by the appellant and the remand report sent by the Assessing Officer. The remand report of the AO was sent to the appellant to file a rejoinder. The fact that the appellant did not file any rejoinder in spite of 3 notices sent subsequently goes to prove the point that the appellant did not have any evidence to contradict what the AO is submitting in his remand report. It is true that the appellant has been able to produce land records substantiating that his father Sh. Adisal is the owner of land but as has been rightly pointed out by the AO there has been no evidence given by appellant to substantiate that he received proceeds from agricultural produce. Hence, in this case the creditworthiness of the person said to have deposited the money is not established and thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a reasonable and satisfactory manner. The CIT(A) upheld the conclusion of the AO by holding that the father of the assessee is the owner of the land but the AO has rightly pointed out that there has been no evidence given by the assessee to substantiate that he received proceeds from agricultural produce. The CIT(A) further held that the creditworthiness of the person said to have deposited the money is not established and thus, the impugned amount deserves to be treated as unexplained investment chargeable to tax u/s 69 of the Act. 13. In view of explanation and documentary evidence submitted by the assessee and observations of the CIT(A) in the operative para 5 of the impugned order, we clearly observe that the authorities below have not disputed this fact that Shri Adisal was owning 8 acres of land jointly with other co-owners. However, the CIT(A) discarded and rejected the explanation of the assessee, affirming the conclusion of the AO that there has been no evidence given by the assessee to substantiate that he had received proceeds from agricultural produce. When we observe the copies of the revenue patwari record column 5, we note that in the details of agriculturists i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
