Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 622 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 68 - assessee in the garb of earnest money introduced his own unaccounted money - Held that:- If a credit from (or attributed to) a trade debtor is not excluded from the purview of s.68, how could that from a trade creditor be? That is, per se. Where the credit is in respect of money received, the account, be it of a trade creditor or trade debtor, is, essentially, only of a person – the stated source of the credit, which is to be established on facts. Reference in this context may be with profit made to the decision in CIT v. Varinder Rawlley[2014 (8) TMI 679 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]. No doubt, the Hon’ble High Courts in V.I.S.P. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [ [2003 (7) TMI 43 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT]; Indian Woollen Carpet Factory vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal [2002 (7) TMI 39 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] clarified that sec. 68 would apply to a credit transaction of purchase as well, even as, as aforenoted, the present case is not of a purchase (of goods/services). Section 68 stands rightly invoked by the AO in the facts and circumstances the case. The impugned order is accordingly set aside on this ground, and the impugned addition upheld. Unexplained investment toward purchase of agricultural land - Held that:- After considering the AO’s report as well as the assessee’s reply thereto, he concluded that an AOP was in existence since the year 2004, which had carried out agricultural operations on 178 acres of land during the relevant year, earning as much as ₹ 50 lacs. There was accordingly no case to doubt the receipt of funds attributed by the assessee to the AOP. The addition of ₹ 15 lacs was therefore deleted (pg. 116 of the IO). The finding stands issued upon an exhaustive analysis by the CIT(A). No contrary material, or otherwise any infirmity therein, stands shown to us during hearing. Rather, we compliment the first appellate authority for the painstaking effort made by him to ascertain the facts. Agricultural income - Held that:- The assessee has 9 acres of land, stated to be drip irrigated, yielding an annual return of ₹ 57,500 per acre, apart from 19 acres purchased during the year, which was therefore cultivated only for a part of the year, besides being admittedly not drip irrigated, stated to have fetched ₹ 20,000 per acre. No evidence toward the land purchased during the year being put to agricultural use, much less the period for which it is, or of that already owned being drip irrigated, being produced, the AO estimated the assessee’s income from agriculture at ₹ 6.50 lacs, making an addition for ₹ 2.50 lacs. CIT(A) regarded the assessee’s estimate as reasonable, and deleted the addition. We find the assessee’s case as wholly unsubstantiated. The AO’s estimate is, under the circumstances, in our view, only reasonable. We, therefore, decline interference therein, and the Revenue succeeds in result.
|