9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hase of Agriculture Land - AO disbelieved the claim of the Assessee without their being any contrary evidence or without making any investigation or examination of the parties. Considering the land holdings of the Assessee and his family members, AO should have accepted the claim of the Assessee in the absence of any contrary evidence brought on record. AO has committed error in making the addition and the CIT(A) has also erroneously upheld the same. Addition made by the A.O. which has been upheld by the CIT(A) it hereby deleted. Accordingly, we allow the Ground No. 5 to 7 of the Assessee. CIT(A) confirmed part addition of agricultural income - It is the case of the Assessee that the Assessee was owing six acres of the land from the beginning of the Financial Year which yielded him the income. The said fact that the Assessee was owning additional six acres of land which has been acquired during the starting of the Financial Year has not been considered by the A.O. However, though the CIT(A) has granted substantial relief after considering the holdings of the land of the Assessee, no reason or justification has been given for sustaining addition. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating the agriculture income of the appellant as income from other sources. 10. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not giving relief of returned income and of the income of Rs. 1,00,000/- treated as income from other sources, out of addition made of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of property purchased by the appellant. 11. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not confronting to the appellant the remand report submitted by the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings and also erred in not giving an opportunity to file his rejoinder. 12. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not giving a personal hearing to the appellant through Video Conferencing inspite of specific request in this regard and thus violated the principles of natural justice. 13. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, armend, modify or withdraw any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee purchased an agriculture land measuring 47Kanal 12 Marla in village Anwal, District Rohtak vide sale deed dated 08/04/2010, registered as Document No. 4 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar Khalanaur District Rohtak for sum of Rs. 35,70,000/- as against the circle rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the order of the Lower Authorities are erroneous. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that even in the show cause notice issued by the A.O. to the Assessee, an amount of Rs. 40,60,900/- has been mentioned and contrary to the same, the Ld. A.O. made addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- which is against to the principals of natural justice. Further submitted that the Assessee had proved the source of the investment forRs. 40,80,000/-, contending that a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- has been paid out of agriculture income earned during past years and current years as the Assessee and his family members are owning 18 acres of agriculture land. The balance payment was out of the amount received from family members who are also the co-owners of the property. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the source for purchasing the agriculture land is out of the proceeds/contribution of the Joint Family /co-owners, thus, submitted that the Lower Authorities have failed to consider the same and proceeded to make the erroneous addition. Thus, sought for deletion of the addition made by the A.O. which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Representative in the case of Namev Arora Vs. CIT (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand. 11. Now, the question remains regarding proving the source of investment of Rs. 40,80,000/- for purchase of Agriculture Land. During the assessment proceedings, to prove the source of investment of Rs. 40,80,000/-, the Assessee contended that the Assessee had paid Rs. 13,50,000/- out of agriculture income earned during the past years and current year. To substantiate the same, the Assessee produced Jamabandi in respect of the lands owned by the Assessee and his family members measuring 18 acres. However, the authorities have erroneously disbelieved the claim of the Assessee without any reason. Further, the Assessee has also claimed that remaining amount has been received from the family members who are also co-owners of the property and the details are as under:- S.NO. NAME AMOUNT RELATION SOURCE OF INCOME 1 SHARAVAN KUMAR 13,50,000/- SELF AGRICULTURIST 2 KARAN SINGH 4,50,000/-, : BROTHER AGRICULTURIST 3 CHARAN SINGH 4,50,000/- BROTHER AGRICULTURIST 4 SAJJAN 4,50,000/- BROTHER AGRICULTURIST 5 HARIG 4,50,000/- BROTHER AGRICULTURIST 6 AJAY KUMAR 4,50,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
