Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1867 - AT - Income TaxNature of land sold - whether this agricultural piece of land sold by the assessee falls within the purview of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act or not? - capital asset - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessee was not allowed opportunity to cross examine. This is against principles of natural justice. This statement cannot be relied on. CIT(A) has mentioned that he has not relied on the statement of Shri Dinesh Pareek dated 02-02-2011. However, his version has really impressed his decision making faculty in one way or the other. It is noticed that alleged physical verifications which are not based on any scientific manner and not done by an expert in the field give divergent opinion. Therefore, these verifications cannot be relied upon. The best evidence in the form of reports of the Sarpanch, the Halka Patwari and even the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur (in the first instance) are emphatic and are reliable. Therefore, we are left with no option but to accept them as correct when these are pitted against the variant statements which in our considered opinion do not seem to be devoid of fearlessness or fairlessness. Overwhelming pieces of evidence which are available on record and filed by the assessee to support her claim, cannot be doubted by the Inspector’s report. Accordingly, we hold that the piece of land sold was only agricultural land which does not give rise to any capital gain. Disallowance of expenditure - HELD THAT:- As noticed from the record that most of the payments against the impugned expenses were through cheques. The nature of work and its payment stands established from the record and assessment order itself. AO has not pinpointed any defect in these expenses and also in the books of account of the assessee. Therefore, the lumpsum addition made simply on suspicion is not called for. We cannot approve such adhoc disallowance which are not tenable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned deletion stands approved which resulted into dismissal of the sole ground raised in Revenue’s appeal.
|