Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1857 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of agriculture income as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 - HELD THAT:- AO held that to avail production of agriculture produce shown by the assessee the expenses are quite low the assessee has not produce anything on record to establish that how he could obtain such a high yield by spending less on expenses related to agricultural income. AO also noted that no supporting evidence to support receipts on account of agricultural income or bills in support of agriculture related expenses such as fertilizers seeds, pesticides, labour etc. were submitted which again supports the allegation and stand of the AO. Before us also the ld. AR could not show us any documentary evidence supporting the fact of expending amounts on agriculture activity and for procurement of agriculture crop therefore, the appellant could not negate the allegations and contention of the AO. AR could not show us any contrary situation or facts to compel us to hold that the observations of the authorities below are not sustainable. In this situation, we are inclined to hold that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is quite justified and based on cogent reasons and we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the same. Hence, the conclusion drawn by the authorities below is uphold and consequently sole ground of assessee being devoid of merits is dismissed by upholding the addition - Decided against assessee Addition u/s 68 - huge cash deposit made in the bank account operated by assessee were not explained and the primary onus of proving the source were not discharged by the assessee - HELD THAT:- When the impugned deposits have been considered in the hands of respective account holders for making additions u/s. 68 of the Act then, the same amount cannot be added to the income of the assessee in the same AY 2011-12 on the same allegations and thus, we are inclined to hold that the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the entire amount of addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) and hence, we uphold the same. Addition u/s 69 - HELD THAT:- Neither the AO nor the DR has controverted the fact that the addition has been made by the AO by treating the amount deposited to the bank account owned by the assessees’ brother Shri Samir Kumar as income of the assessee. In fact, the amount of ₹ 8,64,267/- was representing the maturity value of insurance policy of M/s. Bajaj Alliance Insurance standing in the name of appellant’s brother Shri Samir Kumar therefore, the same was deposited to the account of assessee’s brother and such amount cannot be treated as unexplained income of the assessee u/s. 69 of the Act thus, the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition. Addition on account of unaccounted bank interest which was not shown in the computation of income - HELD THAT:- When the accounts were opened in the names of family members of the assessee and assessee was power of attorney to operate these accounts and the AO could not bring any material on record to show that the assessee was real owner and beneficiary of these accounts and the cash deposits made therein were in fact amounts belonging to the assessee then, the interest earned in such accounts cannot be treated as income in the hands of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|