Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1174 - AT - Income TaxAddition on undisclosed short term capital gain - CIT-A deleted addition - Held that:- CIT (A) has verified the fact that the capital asset remained in the books of account of the firm. It is also a fact that the capital asset was introduced into the firm by the partners. The ld. CIT (A) has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT, (1985 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court). The revenue has not submitted any contrary binding precedent. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A), which is hereby affirmed. The ground raised by the revenue is rejected. Addition on undisclosed investment in purchase of immovable property - Held that:- The assessee was having sufficient balance in the bank account and there was an withdrawal of amount of ₹ 71.50 lacs on 6th July, 2008. The ld. CIT (A) has given finding of fact that there was sufficient cash balance in the account of the assessee to meet the expenses incurred on registration. In view of the above finding of fact, which is not controverted by the revenue by bringing any contrary material on record, we do not see any reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT (A). The same is hereby upheld. This ground of the revenue’s appeal is rejected. Addition on account of agriculture income - Held that:- In respect of proving the earning of agricultural income, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee had duly filed evidence of ownership of the land but he expressed his inability to furnish the evidence with regard to earning of agricultural income. In our considered view, the assessee made the claim of agricultural income but burden of proving the same is on the assessee. The assessee could not discharge the burden of proving by placing any supporting evidences. In the absence of supporting the evidences before the authorities below and also before this Tribunal, we are unable to accept the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Hence we reject this ground of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
|