9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Reducing the agricultural income - CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in spite of not furnishing the supporting evidences as sale bill of agricultural production etc - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed fact that assessee has filed NIL agricultural income vide return of income filed u/s. 139(1) for all the years except A.Y. 2009-10. In respect of A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 the assessee has not shown any agricultural income in the original return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act, however, in the return filed u/s. 153A of the Act the assessee has shown agricultural income of ₹ 80,000/- per year in all the assessment years and failed to substantiate the claim of earning agricultural income with supporting evidences sale bill etc, consequently, the AO has disallowed the claim of agricultural income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of ownership of land has allowed the claim of agricultural income to the extent of ₹ 60,000/- for A.Y. 2008-09, ₹ 80,000/- for A.Y. 2009-10 ₹ 80,000/- A.Y. 2010-11 and ₹ 1,00,000/- for A.Y. 2011-12 stating that ownership o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. CIT(A) has also verified from the copy of intimation u/s. 143(1) that there was not detail of any computation of capital gain on account of sale of jewellery. In view of the aforesaid material facts the Ld. CIT(A) has considered that it was reasonable to hold an amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- available in the hand of the assessee as on 01.04.2004. We consider that in spite of giving a number of opportunities the assessee could not establish that cash was generated on account of sale of jewellery. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee. The same is dismissed. Increase in the household withdrawal from the cash in hand with the assessee - HELD THAT:- The assessee has claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has not made any enhancement in respect of household expenses and no such direction was given to the AO to increase the withdrawal of household expenses. We consider that it will be appropriated to restore this issue to the file of the AO to decide afresh and pass a speaking order after examination of the direction of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this issue is restored to the file of the AO for deciding a fresh as directed above, therefore, this ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015, in proceedings under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . Since common issues are involved in these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience all are adjudicated by this common order. 2. A search action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out at residential premises of the assessee on 08.09.2010. The assessment for the relevant assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2005-06 to 2011-12 have been framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. The AO has passed almost similar worded orders involving common/similar issues for the year under reference. In accordance with the provision of sec. 153A of the Act a notice was issued on 07.01.2011. However, the assessee has not filed the return of income till 14.02.2012 for Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2010-11 and for the A.Y. 2011-12 the assessee has filed return of income on 30.07.2011. Assessment Year wise return of income as per original returns u/s. 139(1) and as per return of income u/s. 153A of the act is reproduced as under:- A.Y. Date of filing return u/s. 139(1) Total Income Agriculture Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e statement of cash explaining the source in the form of the following receipts; Sr. No. Name Type of Receipt Amount(Rs.) 1. Shri O P Singh Repayment of Loan 1,00,000 4. Because, the hon ble CIT(A) has erred in law by not adjudicating on the ground of appeal that the Ld. AO erred in law by making additions u/s. 153A in respect of agricultural income of which no incriminating material was found during search and the period of assessment u/s. 143(1) is completed and no proceedings is pending in respect of any assessment year as on the date of search and thereby acted beyond his jurisdiction. 5. Because, the hon ble CIT(A) has erred in law while arbitrarily reducing the opening cash balance as on 01.04.2004 from ₹ 5,00,000 to ₹ 2,00,000. 6. Because, the Ld. AO has erred on facts while assessing the income of the appellant as per the cash-book. The Ld. AO has suo-moto increased the house hold withdrawal to the tune of ₹ 85,800/- from the cash on hand with the assessee as on 31.03.2008 taking the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Second Ground of Appeal pertaining to reducing the agricultural income by ₹ 1,20,000:- 6. The assessee has filed return of income in response to notice u/s. 153A and disclosed agricultural income of ₹ 80,000/- per year of A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2010-11. The AO has asked the assessee to substantiate the earning of agricultural income by way of supporting bill and sale of agricultural produce etc. However, the assessee has not furnished any sale bill for agricultural production before the AO. Consequently, the AO has disallowed the claim of agricultural income. 7. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee in spite of not furnishing the supporting evidences as sale bill of agricultural production etc. However, on the basis of ownership of agricultural land the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee for earning agricultural income to the extent of 60,000/- for A.Y. 2008-09, 80,000/- for A.Y. 2009-10, 80,000/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and 1,00,000/- for A.Y. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumentary evidences in support of receipt of cash before the AO and before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the above facts the assessee has failed to substantiate along with relevant supporting evidence that the aforesaid cash deposit of ₹ 1,00,000/- was accounted in the books of account of the assessee with relevant supporting evidences, therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee and the same is dismissed. Fourth Ground of Appeal:- 11. Fourth ground of appeal of the assessee is pertained to the issue that AO has made addition u/s. 153 in respect of agricultural income for which no incriminating material found during search. We do not find any substance in the ground of appeal of the assessee as the facts are different as mentioned above in this order because as per the original return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act, the assessee has shown NIL return of income however, as per the return of income filed u/s. 153 of the Act the assessee has herself shown the agricultural income in the different assessment year. In view of the above facts, we do not find any substance in the appeal of the assessee the same is dismissed. Fifth Ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO to increase the withdrawal of household expenses. We consider that it will be appropriated to restore this issue to the file of the AO to decide afresh and pass a speaking order after examination of the direction of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this issue is restored to the file of the AO for deciding a fresh as directed above, therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Assessment Year(A.Y.) 2009-10:- First Ground of Appeal:- 15. First ground of appeal is similar on facts and issue to the Ground No. 1 for A.Y. 2008-09 which has been adjudicated as above in this order and applying the same findings, this ground of appeal stand dismissed. Second Ground of Appeal:- 16. Ground No. 2 in this case filed by the assessee is pertained to the issue of unexplained deposit from repayment of loan of ₹ 15,000/- from Shri O P Singh similar to the ground of appeal no. 3 of IT(SS)A No. 97/Ahd/2016 already adjudicated as above in this order. Wherein it is held that in spite of giving appropriate opportunity the assessee has failed to substantiate the source of cash deposit with relevant supporting evidences. Therefore, applying t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... monstrate with relevant supporting evidences that gold ornament was purchased before 01.05.1981. In the light of the above facts and circumstances we consider that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the indexation with effect from 01.05.2000 as against the indexation allowed by the AO with effect from 27.02.2003. Therefore, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11:- First Ground of Appeal:- 19. First ground of appeal is similar on facts and issue to the Ground No. 1 for A.Y. 2008-09 which has been adjudicated as above in this order and applying the same findings, this ground of appeal stand dismissed. Second Ground of Appeal:- Second ground of appeal is pertained to the issue of addition on account of unexplained cash deposit of ₹ 85,000:- 20. The assessee has stated that AO has not accepted the cash flow statement that amount of ₹ 85,000/- comprise of repayment of loan of ₹ 25,000/- by Shri O P Singh and amount of ₹ 60,000/- loan from associate. The assessee has claimed that she has furnished the rectified cash flow statement with repayment of loan as additional evidences which was not considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about the availability of cash as imprest cash. During the course of assessment proceeding the AO has asked for the oral testimony of Shri Rohit Gupta and Shri Rajiv Agarwal, however, the assessee had not made any compliance. The assessee has asked the AO to call for information u/s. 133(6) or by way of issuing summon u/s. 131(1). However, the AO has not considered it necessary and stated that the assessee was duty bound to produce the oral evidence of the person to establish the genuineness of the receipt imprest cash. Dissatisfied with the conclusion of the AO the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) iand reiterated her contentions as raised before the AO. Ld. First Appellate Authority has considered the submissions of the assessee but rejected that. We deem it pertinent to take note of the well reason finding by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon his submission made before the Ld. Revenue Authorities below and submitted that AO ought to have issued summons u/s 131(1)(A) for ensuring the presence of Shri Rohit Gupta and Shir Rajiv Agarwal if he has any doubt about the certificates giving by them. The AO could have also called f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 8,59,482/-(7,71,060/- before the day of the search) on only 8 (5 before search) days i.e. on 28/4/2010, 31/5/2010, 30/6/2010, 31/7/2010 and 31/8/2010. Needless to mention, all this results in availability of explained cash on the date of search (8/9/2010) to the tune of ₹ 13,12,000/, part of which was seized. Noteworthy in this factual background is also the further fact that the appellant has not attempted to improve her case before me also by explaining and evidencing in detail the circumstances under which the fact and quantum of imprest cash/ business receipts was considered necessary by the appellant and the employer, what agreement/arrangements were made with M/s Technosys, how and who brought the cash from Lucknow to Ahmedabad from time to time, why not only the appellant but even M/s Technosys considered it necessary for repeated transfer of cash when the same was not being spent, how imprest cash remained un-reclaimed by M/s Technosys till 31/3/13 (and may be beyond), whether, and if not, why not, Technosys required appellant to render any accounts from time to time etc., so as to prove the veracity and genuineness of transactions of cash receipts fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the stand of the appellant, I find the same not convincing in the absence of full details and basis of cash-transfers. I have therefore to observe that non-production of oral evidence is an act of withholding the best evidence which has rightly led to adverse inference and finding in the circumstances of this particular receipt.' Moreover, there is an attempt to explain additional cash receipt in day-to-day cash book (₹ 7,71,060/-) by covering it up under withdrawals from IOB which were in fact subsequent to the date of the search and therefore not available to explain the cash on the day of the search. Therefore, I also hold that the onus of establishing the genuineness of the of receipts totaling to ₹ 12,21,060/-impliedly claimed through cash-book, (upto the date of search) has not been successfully discharged by the appellant, and therefore, the action of the ld. AO in disbelieving the alleged imprest cash receipts and other implied cash receipts totaling to ₹ 12,21,060/- from M/s Technosys is upheld. Such cash would therefore not be available for carry-forward or for explaining the cash seized. The exact impact of this finding would be worked out by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther evidence, including oral evidence as required by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings. Ld. First Appellate Authority has persuaded all these submissions of the assessee in the above well reason finding and we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. This issue is decided against the assessee. Third Ground of Appeal:- Rejection of explanation of cash receipt to the amount of ₹ 3,69,000:- 25. During the course of assessment proceedings before the AO and during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) the AO has failed to substantiate the genuineness of receipt of cash with relevant documentary evidences, therefore, we do not find substance in this ground of appeal of the assessee after considering the detailed findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Fourth Ground of Appeal:- Re-computing the income without giving credit of opening balance of ₹ 21,000:- 26. The assessee has contended that while giving appeal effect to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the AO has not given credit of opening balance of ₹ 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
