TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khs as long-term capital gain and Jaitpur Ghoshi land profit of ₹ 5.60 lakhs as short-term capital gain. Addition made as income from other sources instead of agricultural income - Held that:- The assessee did not show that how agricultural income has been earned by the assessee without putting any effort when learned assessing officer has shown that there is no relation between the period during the which the expenditure is debited in the ledger and the crop season. The receipts by Samiti are not the proof of agricultural activities but it may be the proof of selling of the agricultural produce. The assessee did not produce the bills for purchase of seeds and fertilizer. The assessee has also not given the copies of Kishan Bahi, Khasra Khatauani, and bills and vouchers for agricultural operation. The learned assessing officer has also shown that one of the agricultural produce shown by the assessee is labourintensive and no labour expenditure is shown. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in treating the income of ₹ 44135 as income from other sources. - Decided against assessee. Addition on account of alleged low ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from business of trading in land of ₹ 1 091240 which were shown by the assessee as long-term and short-term capital gain. Further, an addition of ₹ 44135 was also made as according to him assessee failed to substantiate agricultural income and material has been established and placed on record that agricultural income could not arise from industrial land and from lands not held for crop seasons. Further addition of ₹ 1 79650 was made because of lower household withdrawal. 4. Assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals who upheld all the additions except scaled down addition of household by ₹ 70,000/- . Hence, assessee has preferred appeal before us. 5. Assessee aggrieved with the order has challenged all the above three additions confirmed by the learned CIT(A) . 6. The first issue is chargeability of profit on sale of land at Laxmipur Patti and Jaitpur Ghoshi. The brief facts of the transaction are that during the year assessee has shown long-term capital gain of ₹ 1507934 for the instant year on sale of land. The learned assessing officer noted that land was purchased and sold during the instant year as advances have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... another plot of land the sale value was 27 lakhs, cost was 21.40 lakhs, and the resultant profit was 5.60 lakhs it was purchased and sold in the same year. Even otherwise the second plot of land were shown by the assessee as short term capital gain and the AO has stated it as a business income, there is no difference in taxation of same. Therefore, the whole controversy is on the sale of first plot of land, which was purchased in 2007 and sold in 2010 after holding for three years. The learned assessing officer has held that there was no intention of the assessee to hold as an investor but as a trader but there was no material put by the learned AO to substantiate his finding the learned CIT appeal upheld the addition on the issue of substantial investment and intention of the assessee. Both these criteria as are not relevant for deciding unless substantiated by the evidence. Even otherwise, the substantial investment cannot distinguish a particular purchase of land between a trader and investor. Merely because the assessee has entered into few transactions of purchase and sale of plot of land in past, during the year it cannot be said that assessee has sold the property is a trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e got from that industrial land. With respect to the other three plots of land, the assessee has shown to grow crop of paddy and wheat. However, the assessee did not show that how agricultural income has been earned by the assessee without putting any effort when learned assessing officer has shown that there is no relation between the period during the which the expenditure is debited in the ledger and the crop season. The receipts by Samiti are not the proof of agricultural activities but it may be the proof of selling of the agricultural produce. The assessee did not produce the bills for purchase of seeds and fertilizer. The assessee has also not given the copies of Kishan Bahi, Khasra Khatauani, and bills and vouchers for agricultural operation. The learned assessing officer has also shown that one of the agricultural produce shown by the assessee is labourintensive and no labour expenditure is shown. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities in treating the income of ₹ 44135 as income from other sources. Accordingly, ground number two of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. The ground number three is with respect to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|