9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same as business income and not an agricultural income and also the similar income is covered under definition of Agriculture under explanation 3 to section 2(1A) introduced by the Finance Act 2008 w.e.f. 01/04/2009. 3. The assessee is in the business of producing and selling Floricultural produce i.e., carnation flowers. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee that Floriculture/horticulture activity is a part of agricultural activity. The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 11,03,410/- in respect of the income from Floriculture treating the same as non-agricultural income. The Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 9,75,000/- on account of introduction of capital by the assessee from unexplained sources and in ignoring the fact that the assessee has changed her explanation from introduction of capital from sales proceeds, (at the time of assessment proceedings) to that of from her personal savings and from her husband s savings (during appellate proceedings). 7. The Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 9,75,000/- in respect of the addition to the capital account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has made addition of ₹ 9,75,000/- to the capital account but no specific head or source of addition has been given by the assessee. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 9,75,000/- at the source of introduction of said capital as explained by the assessee. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. Ground No.2 is dimissed. 9. Ground No.3 reads as under: 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in admitting the additional evidence in respect of difference in opening and closing balance of capital account without giving the A.O. an opportunity to submit his say on such additional evidence. 10. We find that Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 14,93,500/- towards the difference found in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income but the computation attached with the return of income clearly indicated about the agricultural activity undertaken during the year. She stated that due to two separate Balance Sheets, one for her medical practice and another for agricultural activity, there was a discrepancy in the capital account. The Assessing Officer has not considered the balance in the capital account of agricultural activity which was of ₹ 20,48,448/-. The Ld. CIT(A) was convinced with the explanation of the assessee as well as the reconciliation given and he deleted the addition. The only grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have admitted the additional evidence. We find that no additional evidence is filed but the reconc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
