9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of expenses to justify the sale of other agriculture product. On the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing officer rightly brought the difference of purchase on account of difference in stamp duty qua the share of assessee. Before us, neither the assessee has filed any submission nor any evidence, therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence or submission, therefore, we are unable to differ with the findings of ld. CIT(A), which we affirm. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Department : Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.DR ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riculture income. The ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that the assessee failed to substantiate the agriculture income by showing sufficient evidence of sale of agriculture product. The assessee claimed agriculture income of Rs. 18,25,745/-. The Assessing Officer reasonably disallowing agriculture expenses brought the remaining on receipt of alleged agriculture income for taxation. Against ground No. 2 which relates to addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on account of different value of stamp duty on purchase of agriculture land. The ld. Sr.DR for the revenue submits that the assessee failed to substantiate the issue that the land purchased was agriculture land. The assessee relied on self-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of supporting evidence, sale of vegetable was also added by the Assessing officer to the taxable income thereby the Assessing Officer made total addition of Rs. 17,78,765/- (Rs. 16,29,620 + Rs. 1,49,145). The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee has purchased immovable property with seven other co-owners. The sale consideration shown by the assessee and co-owners was in variance with the value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The Assessing Officer on his detailed analysis, worked out 1/8th share and made addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further noted that the land purchased by assessee falls within 2 KM from the Municipality of Prantij. The Assessing Officer accordingly made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re land on which the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable as agriculture land is not a capital asset. 6. The ld. CIT(A) on considering the submission of assessee granted partial relief on the addition of agriculture income on account of sale of vegetables of Rs. 1,49,145/-. However, remaining addition was upheld by holding that the assessee failed to provide basic details of expenses to justify the sale of other agriculture product. On the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing officer rightly brought the difference of purchase on account of difference in stamp duty qua the share of assessee. Before us, neither the assessee has filed any submission nor any evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
