Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1879 - ITAT DELHIDisallowance on account of agricultural income - CIT(A) admitting the additional evidence with respect to the assessee’s claim of agricultural income without giving an opportunity to the AO to examine the same - Held that:- When on one hand the Revenue is accepting continuously an agricultural income for the last more than 10 years and even during search, no evidence is there to the contrary and no inquiry is being made to show that the evidence in the form of Khasra Khatoni is not correct, in these circumstances the AO’s action in treating the agricultural income as income from undisclosed sources, appears to be against the principle of consistency, notwithstanding the fact, that the principle of estoppels and resjudicata have not application to tax proceedings. Therefore, CIT(A) has rightly relied upon the decision in the case of Radhaswami Satsang vs. CIT [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] and accordingly treated the AO’s action in treating the agricultural income declared by assessee as income from undisclosed sources is not correct, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A). Unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 - all the partners were regularly filing their returns of income and had sufficient funds to invest in the AOP - Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly held that the assessee had duly discharged the onus of proving the source of said cash received from M/s Veerandra Kumar (AOP) deposited in the bank account. As regards the amount received from M/s Triveni Motors and Triveni Media Ltd., the assessee duly submitted the PAN details of both these parties, along with the financial statements before the AO. A perusal of the financial statements of M/s Triveni Motors clearly shows that the party had sufficient own funds available with it. This fact has also been appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in view of above submissions and evidences filed by the assessee, the assessee has duly established along with evidences the source of cash deposited by the assessee, and thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. Allowing the claim of business loss - loss of ₹ 3,62,384/- comprises of depreciation on JCB (Rs. 36,494/-) and loss on business transactions (Rs. 3,70,890) - Held that:- From the perusal of computation sheet of the previous assessment years i.e. 2005-06 and 2006-07, the AO himself has been allowing depreciation in earlier years and there is no reason why the same should not be allowed in the year under consideration i.e. AY 2007-08. As regards the loss on business transaction (Rs. 3,70,890), we note that the income and expenditure account and cash flow statement were filed with the AO on 22.3.2013 and after that no query has been raised by the AO. Therefore, the AO’s action in not allowing the business loss of ₹ 3,62,384/- does not appear to be correct especially when business transactions are duly been reflected in the cash book statement and income and expenditure account which were available with him, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the loss of ₹ 3,62,384/-, which does not need any interference on our part. - decided against revenue
|