9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the tribunal was justified in law in not answering the specific ground raised by the appellant that there is no existence of HUF and consequently the assessment made does not survive on the facts and circumstances of the case? (ii) Whether the tribunal was justified in law in confirming the action of the lower authorities when the appellant was not in receipt or accrual of any real income considered by the appellant as agricultural income on the facts and circumstances of the case? (iii) Whether the tribunal was justified in law in confirming the treatment of agricultural income offered by the appellant for the Assessment Year 2005-06 as unexplained cash credit liable for taxa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 25.01.2012 dismissed the appeal preferred by the assessee. In the aforesaid factual background, the assessee has approached this court. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee disputes the existence of HUF and the same was disputed by submitting a communication dated 27.12.2019 by the wife of the assessee. Therefore, the return filed by the assessee is in the status of HUF is non est in law and the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to assess the assessee in the status of HUF. It is also urged that the appellant was to take on lease certain agricultural lands and develop the same to carry out agricultural ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KAR 2025, 'NIRMALA L. MEHTA VS. A.BALASUBRIMANIAM CIT', (2004) 269 ITR 1, 'S.R.KOSHTI VS. CIT', (2005) 276 ITR 165, 'CIT VS.SHOORJI VALLABHDAS AND CO.', (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC), 'CIT VS. CHAMANLAL MANGALDAS (1960) 39 ITR 8 (S), 'GODHRA ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. VS. CIT', (1997) 91 TAXMANN 351 (SC). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the tribunal have concurrently upheld the addition made by the Assessing Authority for a sum of Rs. 28,35,500/-. It is also urged that the issue is held in favour of the revenue and the findings are based on appreciation of evidence on record. Our attention has also been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with land owners but the date of agreement was not mentioned and the stamp paper was purchased on 22.03.2003, which indicates that lease agreement was executed on that day or the subsequent day. It is further submitted that from perusal of the agreement it is clear that the land is earmark for growing / developing of land for different crops and no trees of any kind were found on the land prior to execution of the lease agreement. It has further been found that the buildings or animal sheds were not constructed on the lands which was leased out to the assessee as the possession of the land in question was never handed over to the assessee. Similarly, the tribunal in para 10 of the order has recorded the finding that the assessee was neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
