9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal of the assessee are allowed. Agricultural income - HELD THAT:- Assessee is having an agricultural land which can result in to agricultural produce. Admittedly, the assessee is having the agricultural land of more than 38 acres, the documents for which have already been submitted before the learned CIT A. As originally the assessee stated that he is having agricultural land of only 23 acres, despite the documents of the agricultural land holding produced before the learned CIT A, only for the reason that assessee is initially not aware about the area of land, he disbelieved the holding of 38 acres of the land. As assessee has produced the documentary evidence of 38 acres of the land in the name of the assessee on which the agricultural activities are carried on, the land holding of the assessee cannot be denied. Therefore the CIT A committed an error by not accepting the ownership of the land despite having the title deeds placed on record. Production of lemon on already planted trees - HELD THAT:- Year to year assessee is showing an agricultural land and agricultural income deriving there from. During the year the assessee produced the sale bill of 36722 kg of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see, however, when the learned CIT A so much of account on the veracity of the bills, before saying that the bogus, he should have asked the assessee to either produce those parties or made independent enquiry with respect to the buyers. In absence of these it is merely an allegation is which has not substantiated. Merely on allegation and doubts the addition cannot be made. They needs to be substantiated by due enquiry. Whether provision of section 68 applies when the assessee has not maintained the book of accounts? - HELD THAT:- This issue is no more an issue of debate in view of the decision of Honourable Mumbai High court in case of Arun J Muchalla V CIT [ 2017 (8) TMI 1137 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where in it has been held that even in case of deposits in bank accounts provision of section 68 applies. The Hon Bombay High court in that case relied up on the decision of Honourable Supreme court in Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) v. CIT [ 2016 (5) TMI 928 - SC ORDER] Therefore we reject that argument of the assessee that provision of section 68 does not apply when the amounts are credited in the bank account as assessee has not maintained the books of accounts. - ITA No. 3362/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng old lemon trees' unwarrantedly as trees were undisputedly old( lemons can not be taken from newly grown plants) and thereby leveling a baseless allegation of having turned turtle; Sale bills of 2/3rd share of lemons at wholesale lemon market at the place where land is situated; Agricultural income of assessee having been accepted by same ITO in earlier A.Y- 2006-07 reflecting same in ITNS-150 while calculating tax on income assessed u/s 143(3) of I.Tax act, 1961 and also appearing in his 'Statement of affairs as on 31.3.2006' submitted during assessment, but the Ld. CIT(A)-XXII has disputed the contents of assessment orders of his own department unwarrantedly; Date wise details of savings Bank A/c of assessee for the F.Y 206-07 having only 5(five) transactions on receipt side and only 7(seven) transactions on payment side and a detailed cash account showing receipts and payment separately in the case of a partner of firm ,holding that CASH A/C, BANK A/C and Statement of affairs of an individual do not constitute books of account and thereby ignoring capriciously a judicial precedent whose ratio is exactly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication of income. b. That assessee has earned total agricultural income of INR 1062700/- which has been shown in the cash account and therefore the available total cash with the assessee was INR 2330773/- for the year. Out of which the assessee has deposited the cash in the savings bank account. Therefore the both the addition made by the learned assessing officer and confirmed by the learned CIT A are incorrect. c. That cash account submitted for financial year 2006 07 wherein the complete source of funds available with the assessee is shown. He referred to the statement of affairs of the assessee as on 31/03/2007, the details of the bank account with the state bank of India. d. Agricultural income shown by the assessee is not at all disputed as there is no addition made by the learned AO on that account. e. Assessee owns 38 acre of the agricultural land and out of which it has earned only INR 1,062,700/ . Neither the learned AO nor the learned CIT A both have found the evidences submitted by the assessee not to be false. He submitted that assessee submitted the details of the lender holding, the details of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ass book/bank account of the assessee the provisions of section 68 does not apply as the assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts. 6. The learned Departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has failed to give any explanation before the lower authorities and therefore the additions have been made. He extensively read the order of the learned CIT A wherein the additions have been confirmed after examining the only the details furnished by the assessee with respect to the agricultural income earned by the assessee. It was further stated that assessee has not furnished any evidences before the learned assessing officer and therefore the learned AO was left with no option but to make the above addition. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The brief fact shows that assessee is an individual who is a partner in different partnership firms. During the year the assessee has deposited INR 1,700,000 as addition to capital in a partnership firm namely M/s M S Traders. The assessee has also deposited a sum of INR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee is showing an agricultural land and agricultural income deriving there from. During the year the assessee produced the sale bill of 36722 kg of lemons INR 1062700. The sale bill is not disputed by the AO of learned CIT appeal but the original production of the lemon is disputed. When assessee has sold the lemon and produces the bills before the lower authorities without examining and proving the bill of the lemon sale falls it cannot be stated that the assessee has not sold lemon at all. This is so also because of the reason that in earlier years also the assessee has sold lemon and same have been accepted in assessment proceedings under section 143 (3) of the act for assessment year 2006 07. Even otherwise till to date the assessment under section 143 (3 of the act for assessment year 2006 07 has not been disturbed. 11. Third issue is of expenditure on agriculture. With respect to the agricultural expenditure the assessee has stated that he has deputed the farmers who contribute for the cost of agricultural activities including seeds and they keep one third of the agricultural produce as their share for labour and expenditure. The tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiated by due enquiry. 14. Sixth issue is whether provision of section 68 applies when the assessee has not maintained the book of accounts. This issue is no more an issue of debate in view of the decision of Honourable Mumbai High court in case of Arun J Muchalla V CIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 306 (Bombay)/ [2017] 250 Taxman 362 (Bombay)/ [2017] 399 ITR 256 (Bombay) where in it has been held that even in case of deposits in bank accounts provision of section 68 applies. The Hon Bombay High court in that case relied up on the decision of Honourable Supreme court in Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) v. CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219/239 Taxman 264 (SC) after referring decision s such as Baladin Ram v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 (SC) (para 7), CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67/[1982] 11 Taxman 59 (Bom.) (para 7), Anand Ram Raitani v. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 544 (Gau.) (para 7), CIT v. Smt. Usha Jain [1990] 182 ITR 487/52 Taxman 12 (Delhi) (para 7), CIT v. Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad.) (para 8), Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) v. CIT [2014] 224 Taxman 178/46 taxmann.com 340 (Punj. Har.) (para 10) . Therefore we reject that argument of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
