9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t furnished any information qua to the household expenses. Thus there remains no alternate except to estimate the household expenses on reasonable basis. In this connection, we find that the learned CIT (A) has treated an amount of ₹ 6 lakhs as household expenses but failed to bring any basis for the estimation of such expenses. Therefore in interest of justice and fair play, we deemed it appropriate to treat such expenses to the tune of ₹ 3 Lacs only. It is also important to note that such household expenses should not be taken as the precedent for any other case of the assessee. It is just on ad hoc basis. Benefit considering the past savings of the assessee - In view of the above concurrent findings of the AO for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 with respect to the past savings and without allocating any expense towards the household expenses, it seems to us that no further benefit to the assessee should be granted. Accordingly we are not convinced with the contention of the learned AR. There was the investment in the Life Insurance premium paid by the assessee and the onus was upon the assessee justify the source of investments based on the documenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the evidences produced, the sources for making payment of Insurance premium were fully explained. It be so held now and addition of ₹ 12,50,000/- retained by ldCIT(A) be deleted. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only source of income of the appellant and his family members was from agriculture income and in view of the decision of the Jurisdictional Tribunal cited before him, no addition u/s.69 could be made for investment out of alleged undisclosed income. It be so held now and addition be deleted. 4. Both the lower authorities erred in making addition u/s.69 which is not justified on the facts and legal position invoking section 69. It be so held now and addition made and retained be deleted. 5. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have allowed the appeal of the appellant in toto. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. The solitary issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO in part by sustaining the addition for ₹12.50 lakhs out of ₹ 31.5 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee contended that the AO failed to appreciate the submission made before him, but proceed to treat the insurance premium as undisclosed income without bringing any material on record suggesting that he has earned undisclosed income from any other source. 5.1 The assessee further submitted that the provision of section 69 of the Act does not oblige the AO to treat an investment as income even if the same is not explained satisfactory. However the AO in his case treated the payment of insurance premium as income despite the fact that he has explained the sources investment. 5.2 The assessee further submitted that AO completed the assessment by rejecting his explanations without verifying or examining the veracity of the same. As such the AO should have verified the same by taking further inquiry and affording the assessee with opportunity for his rebuttal. Hence, the principles of natural justice were not followed. 6. However the learned CIT (A) after considering the facts provided part relief to the assessee by observing as under: 6.1.4 I have gone through the assessment order and the submissions / evidence adduced by the appellant in support of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tments of ₹ 19 lacs could be attributed to the known sources of the appellant and the other two members of the family. The balance amount i.e. ₹ 12,50,000/- has to be considered as the unexplained investments u/s. 1 69 of the IT Actj The addition in question is therefore restricted to ₹ 12,50,000/- as against ₹ 31,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee will get a relief of ₹ 19,00,000/-. The grounds of appeal I are therefore partly 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The learned AR before us submitted that the Revenue in the subsequent assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 has accepted the agricultural income to the tune of ₹32 lakhs. Accordingly, the income from the agricultural operations for the year under consideration should also be taken at ₹32 lakhs only. 8.1 It was also contended by the learned AR that once the assessee has explained the source of investment, then the provisions of section 69 of the Act cannot be applied. The learned AR in support of his contention relied on the order of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.K. Noorjaha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsequent assessment years. 10.5 However in the case before us, we find that there is neither any discussion in the order of the authorities below nor any submission of the assessee before them (authorities below) suggesting that the assessee was carrying out agricultural operations on the land of the other parties. In the absence of such information, the learned CIT-A, in our considered view has rightly not taken the cognizance of the additional agricultural income of ₹ 12 lakhs. 10.6 This is also pertinent to note that the Revenue in the subsequent 2 assessment years has only treated the income from agricultural operations for ₹ 20 lakhs only based on the certificate issued by the Serpent. The fact of the other 2 assessment years are exactly the same as in the year under consideration. There was a certificate issued by the Gram sarpunch stating the income of the assessee for ₹ 20 lakhs only. 10.7 However, we find that in the subsequent 2 assessment years there was no deduction made by the AO against the income declared by the assessee for the drawings. In other words the entire amount shown by the assessee was treated as income available for invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned AR has relied upon us the decision of this tribunal s in case of Devjibhai Dhanjibhai Gabani (HUF) vs. ITO in ITA No-1249/Ahd/2007, however we find that the facts of that decisions are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In that case, there was the agricultural income along with rental and interest income declared by the assessee which was not believed by the AO. Accordingly the agricultural income was treated as the income from undisclosed sources. The view of the AO was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT (A). However, the Tribunal was pleased to delete the addition by observing that there was only one source of income available in the hands of the assessee i.e. agricultural operations and the Revenue failed to bring any other source of income of the assessee which can be alleged as undisclosed income. However in the case on hand, there was the investment in the Life Insurance premium paid by the assessee and the onus was upon the assessee justify the source of investments based on the documentary evidence which the assessee failed. As such the assessee has issued Gram Sarpunch certificates where in the income of ₹ 20 lakhs from the so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
