9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O is a mere statement without any evidence. No such evidence furnished before the CIT(A). It is for the first time, the assessee filed such affidavit before this Tribunal, in our opinion, is only to protract the litigation. The assessee ought to have filed the same before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings in 2016 and as well before the CIT(A) in 2017. It is pertinent to note that the said affidavit is dated 04-05-2017 is only after 4 days of passing of impugned order. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the finding of CIT(A) in the impugned order, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, ground raised by the assessee are dismissed. Agricultural income - According to the AO no complete details were furnished regarding the total sales and expenditure, but however, allowed 50% taking into account the large land holdings by the assessee - said 50% was treated as income from other sources is allowed setoff against the addition on account of undisclosed source of income - HELD THAT:- AO and CIT(A) made addition in this regard on estimation basis, in our opinion, without considering the lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the additional income that was voluntarily offered by the assessee. It is noted that the assessee was requested to prove the entries/transaction with cogent documentary evidences in respect of impounded books of account etc. As it appears from the Para No. 8.1 of the assessment order, the assessee could not explain the source of advances, investments made in immovable properties. The AO reconciled the said transactions arising from impounded material year-wise which is reproduced in Para No. 9 from pages 21 to 24 of the assessment order. The AO has given show cause notices dated 08-01-2016 and 02-03-2016, that the assessee submitted his reply on 15-03-2016, but however, in the opinion of the AO no proper explanation in respect of nature and source of the credits were offered in the proper manner with cogent evidences. Thus, the AO proceeded to treat entire debit entries in the impounded books from undisclosed source and added an amount of Rs. 3,30,19,093/- vide its order dated 29-03-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee challenged the same before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) discussed the said issue in detail from pages 12 to 24 of the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As shown in return of income. Unsecured loan from Smt. Sushila Vilas Chaudhari 3,00,000/- As claimed in balance sheet. Sale proceeds of Hyundai Car 2,50,000/- As shown in return of income. Decrease in closing bank balances appearing in the balance sheets as at 31/03/2012 and 31/02/2013 (Rs. 15,62,451 Rs. 64,162) 14,98,289/- As per balance sheet at on 31/03/2013 and 31/03/2012 filed. Decrease in closing cash balance as per balance sheets as at 31/03/2012 and 31/03/2013 6,86,233/- As per balance sheet as on 31/03/2013 and 31/03/2012 filed. 93,70,146/- Less : Debits in capital account except loss on sale of car -26,58,680/- As per capital accounts. Total 67,11,466/- Therefore, considering the source available of Rs. 67,11,466/- for making p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-materialization of transaction with Manas Arun Kulkarni and drew our attention to page 19 of the paper book and argued that the contents therein deposed before the Executive Magistrate supports the statement of non-materialization of transaction regarding the alleged payment of Rs. 1.23 crores. He argued that it is only a proposal with the said Manas Arun Kulkarni through a common friend Suraj Chaudhary. On perusal of the affidavit, we note that it was dated 04-05-2017 and it is admittedly not before the CIT(A) also before the AO. It was only executed by the said Manas Arun Kulkarni after passing of the impugned order which clearly shows the assessee intends to take advantage of the findings rendered in the First Appellate proceedings. We note that the said Manas Arun Kulkarni was appeared before the AO and made statement that no transaction was materialized in respect of entry regarding Rs. 1.23 cores, but however, not preferred to file any affidavit before the AO. Since, the AO made addition taking into the said entry which was challenged before the CIT(A) except making reiteration of the statement that was made before the AO, no evidence such as the affidavit filed before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 7/12 extracts that the land holding by the assessee is 14H 69R that is 37 Acres in Raver Taluka of Khandesh region. Further, we note that the assessee earned gross revenue of Rs. 81,26,660/-, less by 40% expenses declared net agriculture income at Rs. 49,00,000/-. Since, the AO and CIT(A) made addition in this regard on estimation basis, in our opinion, without considering the land holding and crops yielded i.e. Jowar, Cotton, Udad, Adrak, Harbhara and Banana. We note that the details filed by the assessee in written statement that the Banana crop yielded alone Rs. 75,60,000/- as gross receipt, but however, both the authorities below without considering the land holding, crops yielded, and value of crop yielded therein proceeded to make disallowance on estimation basis. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case i.e. land holding and details of crop yielded, average yield as per Government chart, rate per quintals and sale amount, we reverse the order of CIT(A) and hold that the assessee is entitled to claim allowance of entire agricultural income. Thus, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
