Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1148 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - source of cash deposits - credit for agricultural income - Held that:- By using the words “may be charged”, instead of “shall be charged, it is clear that addition u/s. 68 is not mandatory. On the other hand the Assessing Officer has to apply his mind on facts of each case and decide whether the addition is warranted. As mentioned earlier, the assessee is an aged person, who had settled down in his native place. He was engaged in agricultural activities on his retirement and there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee alongwith his wife were in a position to generate unaccounted income of ₹ 39 lakhs other than on-money on account of sale of agricultural land. The payment of on-money is an unfortunate practice in most part of our country, and none can deny this factual situation. It is the case of the assessee that the buyers were insisting on reducing the sale consideration to be disclosed in the sale deed for the purpose of reducing stamp duty payment. This contention of the assessee cannot be totally brushed aside. Place reliance on the order of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Dr. Koshy George (2009 (6) TMI 121 - ITAT COCHIN), wherein it was held by the Tribunal that any surplus money arising to an assessee on sale of agricultural land would partake the character of agricultural income itself. - Decided against revenue.
|