9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is entitled to relief of ₹ 12,19,142/- on this account. Accordingly, the relevant grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed. direct the AO to restrict the claim to 50% of the ₹ 24,38,284/- which include the relief of ₹ 2,33,571/- given by the CIT(A). Unsecured loans received by the assessee from the loan creditors - Held that:- We find merit in the request for remanding to the file of the AO. Thus, we find there is need for more facts necessary for adjudicating these grounds meaningfully. Hence, AO is directed to examine these credits afresh and decide the issue fresh in the light of the evidences to be furnished by the assessee during the remand proceedings. AO is free to repeat the addition in case of assessee’s failure to discharge the onus to the satisfaction of the AO. AO is directed to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, relevant grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.1087/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM For The Assessee : Shri Nilesh Khandelwal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (Appeals)-2 Aurangabad had erred in passing of order after at about five months after case was last heard. Considering the unreasonable delay between hearing of case and passing of order it is preyed to grant relief to the appellant. 6. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing 3. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is a HUF and derives income from dairy business and also from the agricultural activity. Originally, assessee filed the return of income on 31-03-2012 disclosing total income of ₹ 1,09,673/-. Assessee disclosed the net agricultural income of ₹ 50,96,664/- which includes agricultural receipts of ₹ 73,51,294/-. He claimed Agricultural expenses of ₹ 22,54,630/-. Subsequently, assessee filed the revised return on 19-01-2013 declaring income of ₹ 7,66,979/-, furnishing the net agricultural income of ₹ 18,46,053/-. Eventually, AO determined the assessed income of the assessee at ₹ 2,78,51,370/-. Details of the additions are given at page 16 of the assessment order and the same reads as under : Add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lars Amount i. Being amount received for sale of sugarcane 900 Quintals @ ₹ 2300 per quintal as per Satbara No.41 Rs.20,70,000/- ii. Being amount received for sale of Jowar 70 Quintals @ ₹ 2063 per quintal as per Satbara No.41 Rs.1,45,318/- iii. Being amount received for sale of Harbhara 25 Quintals @ ₹ 3535 per quintal as per Satbara No.41 Rs.89,833/- iv. Being amount received for sale of Wheat 50 Quintals @ ₹ 1600 per quintal as per Satbara No.41 Rs.80,000/- v. Being amount received for sale of Toor 8 Quintals @ ₹ 2800 per quintal as per Satbara No.41 Rs.21,000/- vi Being amount received for sale of Udit 3 Quintals @ ₹ 2500 per quintal as per Satbara No.41 Rs.8,125/- vii Being amount received for sale of Corn 25 Quinta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire claim of Agricultural income from other crops . Further, we find it is not the case of the Revenue that the quantitative details of the crops are not in tune with the standards set by the Agricultural Universities in Maharashtra. There is reference to the orders of the Tribunal in the case of Arish Shoukat Bagwan and others (ITA Nos. 193 to 203/PUN/2013 and connected appeals dated 17-05-2017 Further, we find that the assessee claimed Net Agricultural income of ₹ 50,96,664/- is the return of income filed originally. Assessee reduced the claim to ₹ 18,46,053/- in the revised return of income. We have no information on the reasons for this drastic reduction. In the said revised return of income, assessee reflected the gross agricultural income of ₹ 29,31,775/- including that of the income from Mango Crop. AO allowed all claims relating to the said Mango Crops. Therefore, the debate is restricted to the Agricultural Produce of the crops other than the Mango Crop. However, AO denied all claims relating to income from other crops . On perusal of the assessment proceedings, we find that the assessee is not in possession of direct and sustainable 3rd party eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her, AO disbelieved the claim of the assessee. Filing inadequate documentation is also a reason for addition. The said reasons includes (1) confirmation letters are filed and not the bank statements of the creditors; or (2) bank statements are filed confirmation letters are not filed; or (3) returns filed in respect of these creditors were subsequent to the book entries (4) some of the loans are not pertaining to the year under consideration etc. 10. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted for grant of one more opportunity before the AO for filing the relevant papers as wanted by the AO. He requested for remanding all these cash credits to the file of the AO and also requested for granting opportunity to file the additional evidences in support of the assessee s claim. 11. Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). He also opposed to the request of the assessee for grant of one more round/opportunity before the AO. 12. On hearing both the sides, we find merit in the request for remanding to the file of the AO. Thus, we find there is need for more facts necessary for adjudicating these grounds meaningfully. Hence, AO is directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
