Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erial is found during the search. In the present case, the A.O has not pointed to any such material with respect to the agriculture income or the capital gains. The addition as unexplained agriculture income u/s. 68 of the Act was merely on the basis of lack of evidence and no incriminating material was brought on record to support this addition. A.O had accepted assessee s agriculture income in the assessment for other years u/s. 153A of the Act. Similarly, with regard to the disallowance of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act on sale of agriculture land, the A.O has not relied on any incriminating material to show that land sold was not agriculture land. The assessee had already disclosed the capital gain in the return of income and the disallo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the Asst Year 2014-15, which are unabated / concluded assessment, on the date of be undisturbed in the absence of any search, deserves to be incriminating material found in the course of search and accordingly no fresh addition could be made thereon without the existence of any incriminating materials found in the course of search from the premises of the appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that income from capital gains of Rs. 1,17,20,785/- and agricultural income of Rs. 8,75,000/- have already been disclosed by the appellant while filing his return under section 139 and no assessment proceedings of the impugned assessment year is pending as on the date of search. Therefore in accordance with the second proviso there is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4B can only be a alternative claim. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,75,000/- made by the AO as unexplained credit, while the same was disclosed by the appellant both in his original return under section 139 and return filed under section 153A as agricultural income. 9. The CIT(A)-18 ought to have seen that addition under section 68 is warranted only if the twin condition that alleged credit in the financial year is recorded in the books and that no satisfactory explanation is offered by the assessee. In the instant case the appellant has offered satisfactory explanation and therefore no addition is warranted under section 68 of the Act. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... material found during the search and since, the assessment year in question was unabated/completed assessment no addition could be made u/s. 153A of the Act unless incriminating material was found. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwel (P.) Ltd. [2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC) . The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had disclosed agriculture income of Rs. 8,32,500/- in the preceding A.Y 2013-14 and Rs. 8,80,500/- in the subsequent year for A.Y 2015-16, Rs. 8,82,520/- for A.Y 2016-17, Rs. 8,85,700/- for A.Y 2017-18 and Rs. 8,85,700/- for A.Y 2018-19 and no addition has been made by the A.O in those years in the assessment order passed u/s. 153A of the Act. Therefore, there is no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e and no incriminating material was brought on record to support this addition. It is also noteworthy that the A.O had accepted assessee s agriculture income in the assessment for other years u/s. 153A of the Act. Similarly, with regard to the disallowance of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act on sale of agriculture land, the A.O has not relied on any incriminating material to show that land sold was not agriculture land. The assessee had already disclosed the capital gain in the return of income and the disallowance is based on only on the lack of further documentary evidence which does not meet the threshold required u/s. 153A of the Act for a completed assessment. In the light of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates