9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the copies of the patta to substantiate the land holding and the details of the crop, the Assessing Officer is not justified in restricting the income from agriculture. Expecting bills and vouchers from the agriculturist for sale of agricultural produce is something which could not be produced by the ordinary agriculturist. The assessee is an individual and not maintaining any books of account. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee filed the copies of the patta and the details of the crop cultivated, the Assessing Officer is not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the addition made by the Assessing Officer as income from other sources is deleted. The Assessing Officer shall take the income declared by the assessee as income from agriculture. Loan received treated as undisclosed income - contention of the Revenue is that the assessee deposited the cash for issue of DD - Held that:- No material is available on record to suggest that the assessee deposited the cash in the bank account of Shri Pugazhendi. The Assessing Officer on presumption observed that money belon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved, the assessee cannot be blamed for non-production of bills and vouchers. Since the small time goldsmiths are also purchasing jewellery without issuing bills, the Assessing Officer is not justified in making addition. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Cost of construction - Held that:- As rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel for the assessee, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is less than 15% of cost of construction. In fact, the cost of construction declared by the assessee is at ₹ 82,75,777/-, whereas, the Departmental Valuation Officer has valued at ₹ 90,81,900/-. Admittedly, the difference between the two is only less than 15%. The allowance for supervision and purchase of material by the assessee would go to reduce the cost of construction more than 20%. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards cost of construction is not justified. Accordingly, the addition made towards cost of construction is deleted. - ITA Nos.2985, 2986, 2987 & 2988/Mds/2014, ITA Nos.2980, 2981, 2982, 2983 & 2984/Mds/2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charged as per the information furnished, the Assessing Officer reasonably estimated the interest at 25%. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., no interference is called for. 5. I have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Though the assessee claims that it was hand loan, the way in which the assessee carried on the business shows that the assessee is engaged in the business of money lending business. The assessee showed the amount of hand loan in the balance sheet as on 31.03.1999 at ₹ 2,50,000/- and interest income offered was ₹ 44,000/-. This comes to 17.6%. Similarly, for the period ending 31.03.2000, the balance sheet of the assessee showed hand loan of ₹ 1,25,000/- and the interest income offered was ₹ 45,000/-. Similarly, for the period ending 31.03.2001, the outstanding hand loan was ₹ 2,25,000/-. The interest income offered was ₹ 40,000/-. The rate of interest worked out to 17.7%. The assessee himself offered interest income exorbitantly higher figure. When the assessee himself offered the higher rate of interest from money lending business, this Tribunal is of the cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The next ground of appeal is with regard to loan received from Shri K. Pugazhendi as undisclosed income in the case of Shri M. Rajendran. 10. Shri N. Quadir Hoseyn, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee has received loan from Shri K. Pugazhendi. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee has filed confirmation letter from the creditor. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer is not justified in making any addition. 11. On the contrary, Shri Supriyo Pal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that on verification of bank account of Shri Pugazhendi, the Assessing Officer found that the funds were transferred to the assessee through demand drafts. In the case of the assessee, the bank account indicates the credits received through demand drafts from the creditor and no other credit was found. This indicates that the assessee has opened the bank account only for the purpose of accommodation of the amounts he planned to receive from the said Shri Pugazhendi. According to the Ld. D.R., in the absence of any reason for crediting the amount by demand draft, the Assessing Officer found that the credit found in the books of account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y admitted unaccounted chit auction with several persons. Based on question No.21 recorded from Shri P. Ramaswamy, the Assessing Officer estimated the yearly contributions and arrived at income of the assessee from chit contributions. According to the Ld. counsel, the chit contribution was used for making investment in money lending business. 15. I have heard Shri Supriyo Pal, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The assessee contends before this Tribunal that the income from chit scheme was the source for making investment in the money lending business. The details of investment made and subscription to the chit funds are not available on record. The assessee claims that the chit contributions were made from available funds and from the interest earned on the money lending business. In the early part of this order, this Tribunal deleted the addition made towards interest on money lending business. The Assessing Officer estimated the assessee s contribution on the basis of the statement said to be recorded from one Shri Ramasamy. Other than this statement of Shri Ramasamy, no other material is available on record. The Assessing Officer presumed that the total contribution w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee has shown a sum of ₹ 3,84,000/- in the cash flow statement as sale of gold jewellery. Jewellery cannot be sold to a dealer without bills. The acquisition of gold jewellery may be incidental one and the assessee may not be able to produce purchase bill for purchasing the gold jewellery. However, when the assessee sells the gold jewellery to a goldsmith or any other individual, sale bills/invoice may not be available to the assessee. The assessee claims that he sold jewellery for ₹ 3,84,000/- and claims capital loss of ₹ 2,66,899/- This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in view of the smallness of the amount involved, the assessee cannot be blamed for non-production of bills and vouchers. Since the small time goldsmiths are also purchasing jewellery without issuing bills, the Assessing Officer is not justified in making addition. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. 20. The next ground raised in both the appeals is with regard to cost of construction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
