Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 868 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment - addition made simply on the basis of the statement recorded u/s. 133A - Held that:- An admission by assessee during the search or survey proceedings cannot be considered as conclusive unless it is supported by corroborative evidence. With regard to investments on which, the statement was taken, there is no material identified during the survey operations so as to determine the unexplained investment at ₹ 70 Lakhs in the hands of the firm and ₹ 25 Lakhs in each of the partners hands. From the facts, it can be seen that except relying on the answer given by the Managing Partner to a question posed by the AO in the course of survey, no independent information/evidence/material was brought on record so as to support the additions made. Since there is no evidence corroborating the so called admission by assessee, we are of the opinion that the addition cannot be made simply on the basis of the statement recorded u/s. 133A. Discrepancies in respect of expenses and the percentage of net profit on estimation basis - disallowance of expenses - Held that:- The addition made is on adhoc basis. Considering the submissions of the Counsel and facts of the case, we are of the opinion that unverifiable vouchers cannot be avoided in this line of business. Keeping that in view, we are of the opinion that a disallowance of ₹ 5 Lakhs will meet the ends of justice. Consequently, we restrict the disallowance to an amount of ₹ 5 Lakhs. Treating of the agricultural income as ‘income from other sources’ - Held that:- Assessee has offered an amount of ₹ 6.98 Lakhs from 17.25 acres of land and AO took agricultural income per acre ₹ 15,000/- per acre and allowed agricultural income to an extent of ₹ 2.58 Lakhs. Balance of the amount was treated as ‘income from other sources’. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same considering the facts of the case. 13.1. After considering the rival contentions, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Assessee has not justified earning so much of agricultural income and the estimation by the AO is reasonable. Since no contradictory evidence is filed before us, we see no reason to interfere with the orders of the AO and CIT(A) on the issue. In the result, the grounds pertaining to agricultural income as ‘income from other sources’ are rejected
|