9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of excess deposit in the bank account. If both the assessees fail to explain the source of deposit of the difference amount of ₹ 19,85,000/-, the Assessing Officer may make addition in accordance with law. - Decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No.653/LKW/2015, ITA No.654/LKW/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2016 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant by: Shri. Yogesh Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent by: Shri. Amit Nigam, D.R. ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: These appeals are preferred by the assessees against the respective orders of the ld. CIT(A). 2. Since common issue is involved in these appeals, these were hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income and is not exigible to tax. The Assessing Officer has made detailed enquiries from the bidders and has come to the conclusion that story of deposit of bid money on the auction of Mango Orchard is false and he accordingly treated the entire deposit as income from other sources and made addition of half of the amount i.e. ₹ 34,63,300/- each in the hands of both the assessees. 4. These additions are challenged by the assessees before the ld. CIT(A) with the submission that the assessee has furnished detailed evidence of Orchard holdings, but the same was not appreciated by the Assessing Officer. He has also placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11 in their own cases in which the Tribunal has he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in the case of the assessee, as in that assessment year the Assessing Officer has not made enquiries from the bidders, but in this case the Assessing Officer has made detailed enquiry from the bidders and in their statement the bidders did not explain the source of auction money. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly doubted the genuineness of the transaction of auction and treated the entire deposit as income from other sources. 8. We have carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities in the light of the rival submissions and the order of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for assessment year 2010-11 and also the copies of Revenue record in the form of Khasra Khatauni, in which assessee along with his brother ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. It is also evident from the record that this cash was deposited in the joint bank account of the assessee and his brother, but the Assessing Officer has treated the entire cash deposit as unexplained in the hands of the assessee; whereas the assessee has contended that whatever auction money was received, it was deposited in the joint bank account of the assessee and his brother, Shri. Sheik Mohd. Tariq. The total cash deposit was of ₹ 39,31,550/- whereas the assessee and his brother claimed agricultural income to be at ₹ 20,00,750/- each and in the hands of the brother, no addition was made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has also placed copy of the return of his mother in order to establish that the mother was expir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee. We accordingly confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 9. In that assessment year, the total cash deposited in the joint account was ₹ 39,31,550/- and the entire addition was made in the hands of one of the assessees i.e. Mohd. Zubair Siddiqui and during the course of assessment proceedings, Mohd. Zubair Siddiqui could establish that the entire agricultural income was deposited in the joint account, which were treated to be the income from other sources in the hands of the assessee. In that assessment year, the other brother, Sheik Mohd. Tariq has not claimed any agricultural income in his hand. Even mother of the assessees, who also own some Mango Orchard, had not claimed agricultural income in her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
