Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2006 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (4) TMI 209 - AT - Income TaxIncome From Undisclosed Sources - addition on account of investment done in the construction of shops - sale proceeds of agricultural land - disallowance on agricultural income - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered opinion that even though the claim of use of sale proceeds was taken at a later point of time, yet this has a great evidentiary value. The factum of sale stand established and there is no evidence that this amount was used somewhere else therefore, this explanation has to be considered in the correct perspective without simply ignoring it to be an afterthought. Hence, we accept this ground of appeal taken by the assessee and delete the impugned addition, by holding that the assessee has properly explained the investment in the shops out of disclosed income. Investment in the construction of property at Dakota Ka Bas - Since, the learned CIT(A) has accepted the sale of the property for an amount of Rs. 3,10,000 and the assessee had himself declared this expenditure in this property and there being no other evidence to the contrary in the possession of the Department, in view of our above findings where we have accepted an expenditure of Rs. 2,31,000 out of Rs. 3,10,000 towards the shops, we have to accept this claim of the assessee as well. Therefore, we order to delete the amount of Rs. 80,000 from the hands of the assessee. Disallowance on agricultural income - We are of the considered opinion that the AO was not justified in making additions by rejecting a part of the agricultural income simply on the basis of non-availability of sale vouchers because an agriculturist is not required to maintain any books of account. Copies of Girdawari are on record, which prove that crops were grown on the land belonging to the assessee. The statement of the assessee that he provided irrigation facility to his neighbours on cash payment, also in a way, supports the case of the assessee as from this fact it is proved that the assessee had enough irrigation facility to grow crops. The assessee has also filed a certificate of Assistant Agricultural Officer wherein the average production of particular crop in the area in which agricultural land of the assessee are situated have been given. These facts also support the version of the assessee. The sum total of the above discussion is that the assessee has been able to establish his case and the Department has not been able to rebut the same. Therefore, this ad hoc addition cannot survive and hence we order to delete the addition of Rs. 1,00,000. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Addition u/s. 69B - Understated investment - The AO has not gathered any evidence to establish that the assessee had actually understated the investment and the burden is on the Revenue to prove that real investment as shown by the assessee is understated and he cannot rely merely on the fair market value. No addition u/s 69B of the Act for this reason only can be thus made. Moreover, this is a settled law that on the basis of stamp duty valuation no addition can be made as this has not been held to be good parameter to determine the real cost of a particular property which was the subject-matter of a sale deed for registration purposes. Therefore, we do not find infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT(A) and hence the same stands confirmed. Thus, this ground of appeal cannot be allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Department is dismissed.
|