Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 1656 - ITAT CHENNAIDisallowance of depreciation - AO treated the business income of the assessee to be income from undisclosed source and accordingly disallowed the claim of depreciation - HELD THAT:- As apparent that treating the entire business income as income from other source of the assessee was due to the reason that the assessee could not prove her business of providing video coverage. There is no finding by the Revenue that the assessee did not own any depreciable asset against which she cannot claim depreciation. From the enquiries made by the AO it is apparent that the assessee owned shop and was in the business during the earlier years. Revenue has not been able to point out the source from which the assessee had earned the income which she has declared in her return of income - It cannot be presumed that the assessee was not at all carrying out any business activity during the relevant assessment year with respect to providing the service of video coverage - it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee did not own any depreciable asset for not allowing the claim of depreciation. Hence, the disallowance made by the learned AO does not seem to be justified. Disallowance of agricultural income - Revenue has rejected the claim of the assessee only on the basis that the assessee has not proved with documentary evidence that she has earned agricultural income - HELD THAT:- In normal circumstances for petty farming activity it is difficult or sometimes not practicable to maintain documentary evidence for carrying out agricultural activities. In such situation, though the onus is on the assessee to establish that agricultural activities were carried out, the Revenue should also give some leverage by verifying the facts stated by the assessee before simply disregarding their explanation. In the present case of the assessee, the Revenue has not made any efforts to verify the claim of the assessee. Moreover, since the agricultural income declared by the assessee is quite nominal considering the extent of land holding we are of the considered view that the addition made by the Revenue by treating the agricultural income as income from other source is not warranted. Hence, we hereby direct the AO to treat the amount as agricultural income of the assessee and thereby delete the addition.
|