Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (12) TMI 383 - AT - Income TaxBlock assessment - Undisclosed Investment - streedhan - source of investment - held that:- CIT(A) ordered that the credit of at least 60 tolas should have been given by the AO being 40 tolas streedhan and 20 tolas on account of minimum purchases of 2 to 3 tolas on different occasions during the block period. In view of this, the credit of 60 tolas is very reasonable and accordingly the explained investment is worked out at Rs.96,420/- (976.300 - 699.840 gms). However, in view of the fact that during 1.11.1999 to 30.1.2001, the appellant had disclosed interest income of Rs.5,96,116/-, the plea of the appellant that the same may be considered as acquired out of interest income has to be accepted. - the assessee had admitted undisclosed interest income of Rs.5,96,116/- as per return u/s 158BC of the Act which, as suggested by the Ld. CIT (A), requires to be accepted that the assessee must have acquired out of the said amount admitted u/s 158BC of the Act. - Decided against the revenue. Regarding undisclosed investment in FDs - held that:- As rightly pointed out by the first appellate authority, the assessee had the substantial agricultural income year after year and also disclosed additional income on account of interest income, the investment of Rs.57,908 - Rs.4,000 stands explained. This ground is decided against the Revenue. Regarding undisclosed investment in money lending business - (i) agricultural income; (ii) amounts withdrawal from NRE A/c of the assessee's son; (iii) Gifts received from NRIs; (iv) recoveries made from the debtors; and (v) Bond of Bank of India NRE A/c - After scrupulously examining the issue with reference to the AO's remand report, the ld. CIT (A) arrived at a conclusion in a well thoughtout manner that the addition of Rs.67.01 lakhs made u/s 69 of the Act as undisclosed investment in money lending business of the assessee was not justifiable. Since no rebuttal has been forth-coming from the Revenue side with any discreet documentary proof, we are of the considered view that the finding of the ld. CIT (A) requires to be sustained. Regarding agricultural land - Agricultural income of Rs.3- 4 lakhs per year - held that:- all the evidences related to holding of agricultural land and income thereon were very much available in the seized material - Ld. D R drew our attention to the Remand Report of the AO and the preliminary statement recorded u/s 132 of the Act and in view of above, it was argued that the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in arriving at a conclusion that the assessee must be having net agricultural income of around Rs.3- 4 lakhs per annum which, according to the Ld. D R, doesn't command any merit - If the Revenue doubted the very bona-fide of such certificates appears to have been originated from the lower level authorities of the Revenue Department of the State Government, what prevented it to cross verify the veracity of such Certificates at that relevant time itself is a question and answer to it lies at its doorstep - Decided against revenue.
|