9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence between the investment declared by the assessee at ₹ 3.65 crore and as estimated by the DVO at ₹ 3.97 crore is less than 10% of the DVO’s estimate. As such, no addition is called for. Thus order for the deletion of addition. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition being investment made in some agricultural land - Held that:- AO has simply rejected the assessee’s claim of having earned agricultural income of ₹ 8.18 lac, which was duly backed by evidence in the form of Forms No. J. Rejecting the veracity of Forms No. J, the Assessing Officer proceeded to estimate agricultural income in a whimsical manner at ₹ 3,29,250/-. No effort whatsoever was made to examine the commission agents, who issued Form Nos. J. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i, had purchased land measuring 43 Kanals 2 marlas on which a hotel was constructed. The Assessing Officer referred the matter of determination of the value of construction of this hotel/banquet to the DVO. As per the DVO s report dated July, 2013, the assessee spent a sum of ₹ 5,15,578/-on construction of this hotel during the year under consideration, that is Financial year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 5,15,578/-, which came to be sustained in the first appeal. The assessee is aggrieved against this addition. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of ₹ 5,15,578/- on the basis of the report of DVO which indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10% in the DVO s report and the amount shown by the assessee is liable to be ignored. In the facts of the instant case, it is seen that the overall difference between the investment declared by the assessee at ₹ 3.65 crore and as estimated by the DVO at ₹ 3.97 crore is less than 10% of the DVO s estimate. As such, no addition is called for. I order for the deletion of addition. 4. The second issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of ₹ 4,40,865/-, being investment made in some agricultural land. The facts relating to this ground are that the assessee purchased an agricultural land for a sum of ₹ 8,84,000/-. The source of such investment was explained as receipt of agricultural income a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral income in a whimsical manner at ₹ 3,29,250/-. No effort whatsoever was made to examine the commission agents, who issued Form Nos. J. Under such circumstances, the view point canvassed by the Assessing Officer in not admitting the agricultural income at the stated level, duly backed by uncontroverted Forms No. J, cannot be countenanced. If the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the veracity of Forms No. J, it was for him to make investigation and prove that such forms were fictitious or not genuinely obtained by the assessee. In the absence of any exercise having been done, I cannot uphold the sustenance of addition made by the ld. CIT(A) on such unfounded basis. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
