Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 1306 - ITAT CHENNAIAgricultural income - CIT(A) restricting 50% of the agricultural income computed by AO - Since the assessee has not carried out any agricultural operation, the AO treated the above income as “income from unexplained sources” and brought to tax - main dispute of the Department is with regard the income from the lands at Kolli Hills and Ulagankathan village - HELD THAT:- Location of the land holdings are not situated in metro city so that the lease-holder can execute agreement or of any kind and the assessee can produce the same before the authorities below. When the agricultural land held by the assessee was not disputed, it cannot be held that there was no income from the above said agricultural land holdings. Since the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance on estimated basis in the absence of material evidence for the income earned by the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is on higher side and it has to be reasonably reduce the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we allow 75% of the income as income derived from the said land holdings and the Assessing Officer is directed to disallow the balance 25%. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. Addition of cash deposit with UTI Bank - HELD THAT:- If it is the withdrawal from bank account as claimed by the assessee then, the assessee should have made entry in the cash book. In the absence of suitable explanation offered by the assessee, we are inclined to accept the mere submission of assessee that it was a technical mistake. As contended by the ld. DR, on perusal of the assessment order, we find that the AO has made similar addition when the assessee has given same reply with regard to the amount deposited in the Axis Bank account and not shown in the cash book. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Addition of differential amount of cash deposit - HELD THAT:- On appeal, the assessee has failed to give any convincing explanation with regard to the source for ₹.66,520/-. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Even before us, assessee has not given any details with regard to the source for ₹.66,520/- except reiterating the submissions as was made before the Assessing Officer. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Disallowance of the claim of interest payments - whether payment of interest on loans taken for payment of tax cannot be considered as expenditure incurred for the purpose of business? - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has observed that as the payment of interest on loans taken for payment of tax cannot be considered as expenditure incurred for the purpose of business, he sustained the addition made by the AO. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the grounds of appeal and has not filed any explanation with regard to the claim of the assessee - no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
|