9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of unexplained investment - Held that:- As it was explained before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) that all deposits in FDRs were out of agricultural income. Once agricultural income has been accepted, question of making addition on account of unexplained investment does not arise. CIT(A) has dealt with the deposits in FDRs and interest accrued separately. Out of total addition made, the amount to the extent of ₹ 1,29,52,434/- has been found to be unexplained to the satisfaction of the CIT(A) and that too under different heads. We do not find any infirmity with the findings given by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, ground No.4 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Addition made appearing in the name of Shri Raghuraj Pratap Singh - Held that:- The addition referred to in this ground of appeal has been made on protective basis in the hands of the assessee. Since the same addition has been made on substantive basis in the hands of Raghuraj Pratap Singh and the order in his case has become final, question of making separate addition again in the hands of the assessee does not arise. We, therefore, dismiss these grounds of appeal. Income from The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ltural income. The grievance of the Revenue pertains to the fact that no detail of agricultural land was produced by the assessee. 5. The AO in his Remand Report dated 30.09.2014 has also mentioned that the assessee has failed to establish the details of the land holdings. It is the case of the assessee that as regards the details of agricultural holdings and its proof, the same were furnished before the CIT(A) as well as before the Assessing Officer for his comments during the appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) in his order has discussed this issue at pages 96 onwards wherein complete facts of the agricultural holdings and income year-wise has been provided with support of the assessment orders and appellate orders in the case of the assessee. Regarding deletion of addition of ₹ 24,70,000/-, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are as follows:- I have perused the facts stated in the assessment order, Remand Reports, CIT(A)'s order dated 31-03-2008 and 1TAT order dated.14-06-2010 and as well as facts stated in the assessee's submissions and Rejoinder dated 30-10-2014. The CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in not allowing credit for ₹ 2470000/- withdrawn fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 034 10.08.02 70,000 10(vi) 2909 10.08.02 70,000/- 24,70,000/- 27,70,000/- Hence from the above it is seen that the amount invested in FDR is of ₹ 27,70,000/- whereas withdrawals is of ₹ 24,70,000/- therefore the difference of ₹ 3,00,000/- is to be added as unexplained. Now regarding the source of deposits in the Bank Account which in this case is ₹ 24,70,000/- it is a fact that the above deposits in the Bank A/c have been made from the Agricultural Income and other income like Teh Bazari, House Rent etc. This fact has been stated by the appellant in page 6 of this order that Returns were also filed in the HUF and Individual status for A.Y. 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 on 21-03-2003 and along with the return for Assessment Year 2001-02 the following details were also filed-: A.Y. 1989-90 to 1996-97 1 - Statement of Income 2 - Capital Account A.Y. 1997 to 2002-03 1- St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 4 that: .....I have perused the facts of the case. The assessee has shown agriculture income of ₹ 12,60,000/-. The assessee claims to be owner of 1432 bighas land including 599 bighas in benami names. The agriculture holdings of the asesseee are therefore very substantial. Even if minimum income of ₹ 5,000/- is taken per blgha even then the income disclosed by the assessee form 1432 bigha is reasonable at ₹ 1260000/- in view of the holdings of the assessee and also in view of the fact similar income has been accepted in the previous year, the A.O. is directed to treat the income of ₹ 12,60,000/- as agriculture income.... The Assessing Officer Shri Rajesh Yadav, DCIT, Sultanpur, order dated 27-02-2014 for A.Y. 2010-1 (HUF) in the appellant case has also accepted that: ....the assessee enjoys income mainly from agriculture. Besides agricultural income the assessee also enjoys income from Teh bazari and rent income. The assessee produced the documentary evidences in support to its claim. The documents were examined. No adverse inference is drawn and the income return is accepted.... ...Assessed accordingly on a total income of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11,408 1,45,51,336 From this Bank A/c assessee vide cheque no. 130127 dated 01- 05-2000, has withdrawn ₹ 45,00,000/- and on the same day 9 FDRs of ₹ 5,00,000/- each totalling ₹ 45,00,000/-was invested in FDR No. 26 to 34 dated 01.05.2000. NUCB 1-5-2000 26 5,00,000 1 1-5-2000 27 5,00,000 2 1-5-2000 28 5,00,000 3 1-5-2000 29 5,00,000 4 1-5-2000 30 5,00,000 3 1-5-2000 31 5,00,000 6 1-5-2000 32 5,00,000 7 1-5-2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from SBI, Kunda Branch of ₹ 9,90,255/- is to be added Therefore, these issues are partly allowed. 7. With regard to the deletion of addition and relief of ₹ 99,22,950/-, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- I have perused the facts stated in the assessment order, Remand Reports, CIT(A)'s order ted 31-03-2008 and IT AT order dated. 14-06-2010 and as well as facts stated in the assessee's submission and Rejoinder dated 30-10-2014. Regarding this issue my predecessor the then CIT(A)-III, in his order dated 31-03- 2008 had granted relief by stating that the valid warrant was not issued. He observed in para 24 that: .....Shri G.N. Srivastava, counsel for the assessee submitted that as per his information there was no warrant issued on Bank of Baroda Account No. 5941, therefore, no investment therein could be added as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. There is no dispute that a valid search with valid warrants is (he very basis for initiation of proceedings u/s 158BC of the Act and where the assesses prima facie disputes that no warrant or no valid warrant has been issued and if the same is found to be correct then the very add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 52000/- and ₹ 761319/- are not at all justified as they have been made out of such agricultural income either of earlier years accumulation or amount of such agricultural income for the year: U.P. Singh (Block Assessment) THE POSITION IS SUMMARIZED REMAND REPORT)I, NUCB SADAR BRANCH BELOW - (FDR'S AS PER Total of all FDRs 1,63,16,892 Covered by withdrawals 1,33,05,000 Unexplained Chilbila Branch 30,11,892 Total of all FDRs 19,74,659 Less Reinvestment 2,89,659 Net 16,85,000 Covered by withdrawals 16,85,000 Unexplained NIL Kunda Branch Total of all FDRs 57,92,000 Deduct interest included in figures 8,37,000 Net 49,55,000 Covered by withdra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee is proved. The ld. A.R. of the assessee invited our attention to pages 208,209, 210 and 211 of the paper book wherein the copy of writ petition referred to above is there and documents annexed proves the land holding of the assessee which are made as part of this order as Annexure A , Annexure B , Annexure C and Annexure D . 12. We also find annexed in the paper book the copy of assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, Central Circle-2, Lucknow under section 143(1) of the Act for assessment year 2001-02, order dated 12/1/2004 assessing the agricultural income at ₹ 6,48,970/-. We also find copy of the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer, Central Circle-2, Lucknow, under section 143(1) for Assessment year 2001-02 (HUF status) dated 12.01.2004 assessing agriculture income at ₹ 14,46,810/-. We also find in the paper book annexed the copy of the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer, Central Circle-2, Lucknow, under section 143(3) for Assessment year 2002-03 (Ind.) dated 18.03.2005 assessing agriculture income at ₹ 5,47,340/-. There is also copy of the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer, Central Circle-2, Lucknow, u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has accepted assessee s claim of agricultural income in the later year. We, therefore, find no infirmity with the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and grounds No.1 to 3 of the Revenue s appeal are dismissed and the relief given by the ld. CIT(A) to the assessee sustained. Accordingly, grounds No.1 to 3 are dismissed. 15. With regard to ground No.4, the issue is dealt with by the ld. CIT(A) at pages 106 to 108 of his order. This ground is general in nature and we have perused the issue and we find that total undisclosed income assessed by the Assessing Officer in block assessment order was ₹ 14,97,51,700/-. The same was on account of undisclosed investment in bank FDRs and interest accrued, saving bank and agricultural receipts. The ld. CIT(A) has reduced the same to ₹ 1,29,52,434/-. It was explained before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) that all deposits in FDRs were out of agricultural income. Once agricultural income has been accepted, question of making addition on account of unexplained investment does not arise. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the deposits in FDRs and interest accrued separately. Out of total addition made, the amount to the extent of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th respect to the quantum of addition confirmed. As regards addition of ₹ 7,03,846/-, the same belongs to HUF of the assessee. The same should not have been assessed in the individual assessment. 23. We have perused the case records and from the order of the ld. CIT(A) it is absolutely clear that this addition of ₹ 7,03,846/- belongs to HUF and it has to be assessed in the hands of HUF and therefore the same should not have been assessed in individual assessment. We, therefore, direct deletion of this amount. 24. With regard to addition with respect to unexplained deposit of ₹ 30,11,892/-; ₹ 3,00,000/- and ₹ 50,000/-, it was vehemently argued by the ld. A.R. of the assessee that they were excessive in nature. We are not convinced with the contentions of the ld. A.R. of the assessee and therefore, we dismiss these grounds. 25. Grounds No.2 and 3 of the assessee s appeal are general in nature, hence needs no adjudication. 26. Accordingly, assessee s appeal is partly allowed. 27. In the result, Revenue s appeal in ITA No.109/Alld/2015 is dismissed and assessee s appeal in ITA No.116/LKW/2015 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
