9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld CIT(A) has not refuted or discredited these evidences. The ld CIT(A) does not mention why he is not accepting these evidences. Therefore, we delete the balance addition of Rs. 4,21,537/-. STCG on share market transactions and speculative gain in share transactions - HELD THAT:- Losses incurred in the trading of shares were adjusted in short term capital gain therefore these were not appearing in the original return of income, that is, losses were claimed in the original return of income, however, because of set off from short term capital gain, they disappeared. Hence, we do not find any merit in the submission of DR and therefore, the addition are hereby deleted. Hence, we allow ground No. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee. Addition pertaining to stamp duty in cash and LIC premium paid in cash - HELD THAT:- We do not agree with ld DR for the Revenue, as the assessee explained the source of payment stating that part payment was made from his wife account and from his parents. Considering these facts, we delete the additions. Cash deposit in the bank account - AO rejected the claim of the assessee by stating that the cash deposits made during the year is more than ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,21,982/- towards the LIC premium paid in cash. 7. It is therefore prayed that the above addition/disallowance made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 8. Assessee craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. At the outset, we note that Learned Counsel for the assessee, did not argue ground No.1, raised by the assessee, therefore we dismiss ground No.1 raised by the assessee, as not pressed/argued. 4. In ground No.2 the main grievance of the assessee is that learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming disallowance on account of agriculture expense at the ad hoc rate of 30% to the extent of Rs.4,21,537/- as unexplained cash in hand. 5. Brief facts qua ground No.2 are that assessee did not file his return of income of income for the year under consideration. The assessing officer noticed that in the year under consideration, the assessee found to have deposited cash amounting to Rs.13,00,000/- in his bank account which he maintained with Dena Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. Learned Counsel submitted that once agriculture income was proved on the basis of record of title and possession and agriculture land and evidence of agriculture operations earning income there form, the same has not to be proved every year separately therefore, ld Counsel for the assessee prayed the Bench that addition restricted by ld CIT(A) to Rs.4,21,537/- is part of agricultural income and therefore such addition should be deleted. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 8. We note that ld CIT(A) deleted the substantial addition, observing that AO tried to disprove the claim of agriculture income by referring to discrepancies in the statement of Ranjit L. Thakur (mango contractor who entered into Kabala agreement with the assessee). However, the fact of land holdings of the assessee and agriculture income shown in the past years including the assessment year 2007-08 where the agriculture income explaining cash deposits were f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agriculture income. Thus, to the extent of Rs.4,21,537/-, there will be shortage of cash for deposit in the bank accounts. Hence, out of total cash deposit of Rs.21,12,000/-, Rs.4,21,537/- is treated as unexplained cash in the hands of assessee. As regards the other credit entries, ld CIT(A) find that the assessee has explained the credit entries properly and the AO has not brought out any concrete evidences to reject the same. Most of the credit entries are found to be pertaining to opening balance in the said bank accounts, FD closure proceeds and other sources receipts. Thus, the addition of Rs.59,29,739/- pertaining to cash deposits and other credits was restricted to Rs.4,21,537/- by ld CIT(A). We note that ld CIT(A) failed to prove that amount of Rs. 4,21,537/- is out of unaccounted income. The assessee submitted enough proof and ld CIT(A) has not refuted or discredited these evidences. The ld CIT(A) does not mention why he is not accepting these evidences. Therefore, we delete the balance addition of Rs. 4,21,537/-. 9. Ground No.3 and 4 raised by the assessee relates to addition of Rs.28,888/- as STCG on share market transactions and Rs.32,357/- pertaining to speculative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertaining to Rs.19,800/- and Rs.3,21,982/-. Thus ground No. 5 and 6 raised by the assessee are allowed. 11. In the result, assessee s appeal is partly allowed. 12. Now, coming to ITA No. 558/SRT/2019 for AY.2010-11, wherein grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming disallowance on account of agriculture expenses at the ad hoc rate of 30% to the extent of Rs.4,79,529/- u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. It is therefore prayed that the above addition/disallowance made by the assessing officer may please be deleted. 4. Assessee craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 13. At the outset, we note that Learned Counsel for the assessee, did not argue ground No.1, raised by the assessee, therefore we dismiss ground No.1 raised by the assessee, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 and net agriculture income of Rs.4,40,733/- for A.Y. 2011-12 were accepted by the AO. It was also submitted by the assessee that during scrutiny of agriculture income for AY 2006-07, the inspector of ward/circle had visited the agriculture land and even statement of Mr. Alikhan Pathan (Mango Contractor) was recorded by the AO. Thus, ld Counsel contended that there was well accepted fact of agriculture income in the case of assessee for AY 2006-07. Furthermore, the assessee's husband's claim of agriculture income of Rs. 21,96,314/- in A.Y. 2006-07 was accepted by the AO, agriculture income of Rs.23,15,500/- for A.Y. 2007-08 was accepted at the level of ITAT, agriculture income of Rs.13,98,666/- for A.Y. 2008-09 was accepted by the AO, agriculture income of Rs.6,13,306/- for A.Y. 2011-12 was accepted by the AO. The ld Counsel enclosed the order of ITAT in assessee and husband case for A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA no. 123/SRT/2017) dated 27.11.2018 wherein the order u/s. 263 of the Act was challenged. In the said order, the Hon'ble bench set-aside the order u/s. 263 of the Act by observing that the AO had made inquiries of cash deposits in bank account as derived out of agricultur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
