9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess during the earlier years. Revenue has not been able to point out the source from which the assessee had earned the income which she has declared in her return of income - It cannot be presumed that the assessee was not at all carrying out any business activity during the relevant assessment year with respect to providing the service of video coverage - it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee did not own any depreciable asset for not allowing the claim of depreciation. Hence, the disallowance made by the learned AO does not seem to be justified. Disallowance of agricultural income - Revenue has rejected the claim of the assessee only on the basis that the assessee has not proved with documentary evidence that she has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see has raised several grounds in her appeal, however, the cruxes of the issues are as follows:- i) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the order of the learned Assessing Officer who had disallowed Rs.1,18,844/- Rs.83,812/- being expenses incurred towards electricity charges repairs maintenance respectively due to lack of evidence. ii) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.2,20,316/- made by the learned Assessing Officer in regard to depreciation. iii) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,18,750/- made by the learned Assessing Officer in regard to agricultural inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of depreciation. 5.2 On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the learned Assessing Officer accepting his view. 5.3 Before us, the learned Authorized Representative argued by stating that even if the assessee could not prove with cogent evidence for the entire revenue received from business to a certain extent she was able to produce the cameraman who had given evidence in favour of the assessee, therefore at least to a certain extent the business receipt is proved. Hence, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of depreciation and accordingly pleaded for allowing the same as deduction. 5.4 The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand relied on the orders of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer proceeded to treat the net business profit of Rs.13,02,150/- declared by the appellant's proprietary concern as 'income from other sources' (which has, however, not been contested by the appellant). Since the circumstantial evidence established that the appellant's proprietary concern did not carry out any business activity during the relevant accounting year, the Assessing Officer simultaneously disallowed the depreciation claim of Rs.2,20,316/-. 5.6 It is also apparent that the learned Assessing Officer has arrived at his conclusion based on circumstantial evidence. Further, the Revenue has not been able to point out the source from which the assessee had earned the income which she has declared in her retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Revenue that all the sales were made by cash. However, since no evidences were placed before the learned Assessing Officer for having earned agricultural income, the learned Assessing Officer treated the same as income from other source. 6.2 With respect to Rishiyur land, the assessee had claimed agricultural income of Rs.45,420/- , but the learned Assessing Officer treated the same as income from other source because the land was leasehold and the assessee has not furnished any evidence with respect to the lease and also not furnished any evidence for having earned agricultural income. 6.3 On appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the learned Assessing Officer accepting with his view. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) vide order dated 28.02.2001 in ITA No.69, 63,70, 71/2000-01 has estimated the assessee s agricultural income in Rishiyur village at 50% of the amount claimed which was upheld by the Tribunal vide order dated 16.02.2006 in ITA No.893/Mds/2001. Considering these facts and the extent of land holding of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the amount of agricultural income declared by the assessee of Rs.3,18,750/- is quite reasonable. The Revenue has also not made any effort to prove that no agricultural activity was carried on in the assessee s farm. The Revenue has rejected the claim of the assessee only on the basis that the assessee has not proved with documentary evidence that she has earned agricultural income. In norm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
