9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs. 100000/- to the returned income of the appellant on account of alleged unexplained investment in agricultural land (in the name of wife of the appellant) ignoring the facts & legal position of the case which is bad in law. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs. 150000/- to the returned income of the appellant, on account of alleged unexplained investment made in purchases of agricultural produce, by not accepting that the agricultural produce found during the survey was grown by the appellant through his own agricultural activities and by wrongly treating the same agricultural produce purchased from unaccounted sources ignoring the facts & legal position of the case which is bad in law. 4. That the on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs. 150000/- to the returned income of the appellant on account of alleged unexplained investment in advance given to various person in earlier years (i.e. not pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06) ignoring the facts & legal position of the case which is bad in law. 5. That on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions sustained the addition made by the A.O. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal against the additions sustained by the authorities below. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made before the lower authorities in remand proceedings. 6. The submissions of the assessee are as under:- "The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder: 1. "The assessee is an individual deriving income from small business of fertilizer and interest income. The assessee is mainly an agriculturist in the status of HUF. Since the assessee does not have any taxable income, he did not file any return. A survey took place at the business premises/residence of the assessee on 30.01.2005. During the course of the survey the assessee surrendered the income of Rs. 12,00,000/- under various heads without understanding the provisions of law and on account of pressure of the survey party. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed the return declaring total income of Rs. 4,55,000/- under the following heads: Interest income Rs. 55,000/- Construction of house Rs. 3,00,000/- On account of cash Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs. 4,55,000/- 2. The assessment was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are impounded the dates of receipt of money are mentioned has made the addition only on the basis of the declaration made during the survey proceedings and with the remark that the assessee failed to furnish the name and addressed of the debtors and was not able to furnish any evidence to substantiate his claim. Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- for alleged investment in agriculture land The assessee has explained that the agriculture land in the name of wife has been purchased in the year 1993 and 1998 and as such the investment cannot be added as income of this year. The Ld. A.O. without admiring the facts that the agriculture land were purchased in the earlier year has made the addition only on the basis of the declaration made during the survey proceedings and with the remark that the assessee failed to furnish the source of investment made by him during the year under consideration. Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- for alleged unexplained investment of stock of agriculture produce. The assessee has explained that the agriculture stock was on account of agricultural income of the HUF of the assessee wherein the total income has been shown. The HUF holds the 10 hec. Of agric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has given loan and when he received back. But A.O. without paying attention added all the amount and nothing in this regard clearly shows that balance was outstanding as on 31.3.2004 and during the year same has been received back in this year. Therefore, no addition can be made. Section 69 of the Act clearly speaks that where in the financial year immediately preceding assessment year, assessee has made investment which are not recorded in the books of accounts if any maintained by him by any source of income and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of investment or the explanation offered by him is not in case of A.O. satisfactory the value of investment deemed to be the income of the assessee in such financial year. Hence, the addition deserves to be deleted. In respect of stock of Rs. 1,50,000/- found during the course of survey, he submitted that all agricultural land belong to assessee HUF as all the investments are made by the HUF and all agricultural income is shown by the HUF. The HUF is holding more than 5 Hectares of land and filing its return of income to the ITO-1 Mandsaur and showing agricultural income along with dairy income. This asp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excess cash found during the course of survey ignoring the facts & legal position of the case which is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs. 200000/- to the returned income of the appellant on account of alleged unexplained investment in agricultural land (in the name of wife of the appellant) ignoring the facts & legal position of the case which is bad in law. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs. 200000/- to the returned income of the appellant, on account of alleged unexplained investment made in purchases of agricultural produce, by not accepting that the agricultural produce found during the survey was grown by the appellant through his own agricultural activities and by wrongly treating the same agricultural produce purchased from unaccounted sources ignoring the facts & legal position of the case which is bad in law. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs. 200000/- to the returned income of the appellant on account of alleged unexplained investment in advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out considering the submissions made by the assessee again made additions which were made in the original assessment. The submissions made before the Ld. A.O. are summarized here under. The additions made by the Ld. A.O. are also mentioned. Addition for advances - Rs. 2,00,000/- The promissory notes were found and impounded by the Department during the course of the survey (pg.14-19 of PB). From the dates it would be seen that all promissory notes were of the earlier years from 1996 to 1998. It was submitted that the additions cannot be made for advances given in the earlier years. It would also be seen that on the backside, the date of receipt of money has also been mentioned which was the F.Y. 2004-05. Without considering the fact that the advances were made in the earlier years against which the promissory notes were obtained, the additions have been made. The Ld. A.O. without admiring the facts that the promissory notes are of the earlier years has made the addition only on the basis of the declaration made during the survey proceedings and with the remark that the assessee failed to produce books of accounts and documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. He further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l activities It is humbly submitted that the assessee is mainly an agriculturist and has no knowledge about the income tax. Without having any knowledge and under a pressure the additional income was declared. It is humbly submitted that on the basis of the papers found and on the basis of the submissions made no addition can be made during this year. It is further submitted that the statement recorded during the course of the survey has no evidential value without any documentary evidence. The addition of Rs. 50,000/- for low household expenses is also uncalled for since the assessee is an agriculturist living in a small village does not require high expenditure to be incurred. The additions made deserves to be deleted." 12. Ld. D.R. opposed these submissions and supported the order of the authorities below. 13. The facts and circumstances of the case are identical as were in ITA No.12/Ind/2018, wherein we have decided the grounds of the assessee by observing as under: "9. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. This Tribunal had categorically directed the A.O. to make verification o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
