|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1518 Records
-
2022 (12) TMI 1398 - ITAT MUMBAI
Ex-parte order passed by ITAT - assessee is seeking recall of the order - assessee submitted that due to death of his Aunty i.e. close relative, he was busy in her funeral and post funeral ceremonies and therefore he could neither appear before the Tribunal not could intimate to the assessee for seeking adjournment in the case - HELD THAT:- According to us, the reasons advanced by the assessee are one of the sufficient cause for his non-appearance. As the submission on the behalf of the assessee have not been considered by the Tribunal, therefore, in the interest of the justice and in view of Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the appeals of the assessee are recalled for hearing. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal in due course and intimate the parties accordingly.
Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1397 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Treating the fabrication charges received as fees for technical services - taxed the same under section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T. Act read with Article-12(4)(a) of the DTAA between India and Singapore - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee own case [2022 (7) TMI 1396 - ITAT MUMBAI] the fact that an arrangement regarding situs of entities providing different facilities, in connection with a transaction of the multinational group, is done in a tax-efficient manner, cannot be reason enough to disregard the arrangement.
We are satisfied that so far as the income of the assessee from the refurbishing of the bushes is concerned, it is not taxable in India as the provisions of Article 12(3) cannot be invoked in this case, and that, so far as the provisions of Article 12(4)(a) are concerned, these provisions cannot be invoked as the assessee has not rendered these services in connection with the services “for which a payment described is received” by the assessee. Thus delete the impugned addition The assessee gets the relief accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1396 - ITAT DELHI
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - agency PE - both the authorities treated the assessee as DAPE [Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment] - nature of the business activities carried out by the assessee and subsidiary of the assessee viz. Krones India Pvt. Ltd. (“KIPL”) - HELD THAT:- For an enterprise to be considered as habitually securing orders wholly or almost wholly for the other enterprise, it is essential that the enterprise frequently accepts orders on behalf of the other enterprise or habitually represents to persons offering to buy goods or merchandise that acceptance of an order by such enterprise constitutes the agreement of the other enterprise to supply goods or merchandise under the terms and conditions specified in the order and further the other enterprise takes actions that give purchasers the basis for a reasonable belief that such person has authority to bind the other enterprise.
We are of the considered view that KIPL is only undertaking marketing enterprise and contracts are finalized by the assessee and signed by the assessee outside India. Therefore, KIPL cannot be said to be habitually securing and concluding order on behalf of the assessee.
KIPL maintains stock inventory and economically dependent on the assessee - The agreement with KIPL is effective from 2007 and we are in Assessment Year 2011-12 which means that no adverse view has been taken by the Revenue in the past and we have been told by the ld. counsel for the assessee that no adverse view has been taken by the Revenue after the present assessment.
Though the AO has heavily relied upon the TP Study Report of KIPL, but has not brought any evidence on record that KIPL has habitually secured orders for the assessee. None of the customers have been examined by the Assessing Officer though the customers from India include renowned organizations like Nestle, Coco Cola, Pepsico etc.
Considering all we are of the considered view that the observations made in the TP Study Report of KIPL regarding scope of its business activities do not result in holding KIPL as DAPE of the assessee and further, since KIPL has been remunerated by the assessee for commission activities on arm’s length basis, no further attribution is required in lieu of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley [2007 (7) TMI 201 - SUPREME COURT]
We, accordingly, hold that pursuant to the specific exclusion of independent agent under Article 5(5) of the DTAA, the case o the assessee falls outside the scope of PE. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1395 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Late filing fee u/s 234E - intimation u/s 200A - whether late fee and consequential interest could be levied in respect of the TDS statements relating to the period prior to 01/06/2015? - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the period covered under all these appeals are prior to 01/06/2015. It is also not in dispute that after noticing the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court [2017 (7) TMI 458 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Hon'ble Karnataka High Court ([2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]), and many other decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Supreme Brahmaputra (JV) [2020 (9) TMI 289 - ITAT DELHI] held that when there are conflicting decisions of various Hon'ble High Courts, in the absence of any view taken by the jurisdictional High Court, while following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd.,[1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] the view in consonance with the plea of the accused has to be taken.
Thus we hold that the issue is in favour of the assessee and direct the learned Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under section 234E of the Act.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1394 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Levy of Entry Tax - scheduled goods imported from outside the territory of India - Section 3 of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 - levy of penalty u/s10(2) of the Act - Whether levy under Section 3 of the Odisha Entry Tax Act, 1999 is attracted on scheduled goods imported from outside the territory of India? - HELD THAT:- The issue now stands settled in STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS VERSUS FR. WILLIAM FERNANDEZ ETC. ETC. [2017 (10) TMI 491 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that We thus do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that entry tax legislation is not covered by Entry 52 List II. - the Court declines to frame question as urged.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case levy of penalty U/s.10(2) of the Act is warranted? - HELD THAT:- With the legal position having been settled only in October 2017, most of the Dealers-Assessees were under bona fide impression that Entry Tax would not payable on goods imported into India. Therefore, it could reasonably be contended that till such time there was no willful or deliberate attempt by the Dealer-Assessee to waive payment of Entry Tax.
The Court notes that under Section 10 (2) of the OET Act, there is an element of discretion in the Assessing Authority to levy penalty where the escapement or under assessment of tax “is without any reasonable cause.” Since the Court is satisfied that the non-payment of Entry Tax on imported goods by the Petitioner, cannot be said to be without reasonable basis, the Court is of the view that in the present case the levy of penalty was not justified.
The question is accordingly answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Petitioner and against the Department. The impugned Assessment order in so far as it imposes penalty on the Petitioner is hereby set aside - Revision petition allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1393 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty equal to two times of tax assessed under Section 43-(2) of the OVAT Act - absence of observation by the Assessing authority that the underassessment tax is without any reasonable cause - Whether, the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench-II, Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack, is right in law to hold Section-43 provides for best judgment assessment, whose part and parcel is imposition of penalty. If the use of word “may” is liberally used then the purpose of escape assessment under VAT regime would disappear? - HELD THAT:- It is seen that in the assessment order dated 5th February, 2013 while raising a demand on the basis ‘erroneous claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC)’, the Sales Tax Officer (STO), Ganjam-I Circle, Berhampur proceeded to impose penalty under Section 43(2) of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (OVAT Act) without actually coming to any conclusion that ITC with differential tax wrongly availed by the Petitioner-Assessee was “without reasonable cause”.
As far as present case is concerned, the assessment order of the Assessing Officer does not record the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that wrongful availment of ITC by the Petitioner was “without reasonable cause”. Thus, the essential component of Section 43(2) of the OVAT Act for attracting the penalty, viz., the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that the escapement of tax was without reasonable cause, is absent in the present case.
The issue is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Petitioner and against the Department and the impugned order of the Tribunal and the corresponding orders of the First Appellate Authority and the Assessing Officer levying penalty on the Petitioner under Section 43 (2) of the OVAT Act are hereby set aside - application disposed off.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1392 - SC ORDER
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - applicant-petitioner had never co-operated with the investigation and was, in fact, declared absconder - HELD THAT:- We are not entering into any of the questions for the reason that we have taken up the matter for consideration for a limited purpose of correcting the obvious errors in the order dated 07.12.2022 and for putting the records straight while, at the same time, maintaining the spirit of the order as passed by us.
We again make it clear that we have not made any comments on the merits of the case and, obviously, it would be expected of the Trial Court to consider the matter dispassionately and uninfluenced by any of the observations occurring in the order impugned or in the present order by us.
Application disposed off.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1391 - SC ORDER
Prayer for adjournment declined - petitioner seeking adjournment due to personal difficulty of the instructing counsel - HELD THAT:- After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.12.2018, whereby the High Court declined the prayer of pre-arrest bail of the petitioner - On being queried if any of the principal accused person had been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail in these matters, inter alia, involving the offences under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner frankly answered in the negative.
In any case, so far the impugned orders are concerned, we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly declined the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner, particularly looking to the nature of accusations. The grant of bail or even pre-arrest bail to any other accused will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner so far as the prayer for pre-arrest bail is concerned. Therefore, these petitions are required to be dismissed.
However, taking note of the overall circumstances, including that the petitioner is a lady in about 58 years of age, we deem it appropriate to provide that if the petitioner surrenders within a week from today and applies for regular bail, her bail plea may be considered by the Trial Court expeditiously and in priority. The interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue for a period a period of one week or until the bail plea of the petitioner is considered by the Trial Court, whichever be the earlier.
Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1390 - ITAT CHENNAI
Condonation of delay of 449 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Reasons given by the assessee in the affidavit does not come under reasonable cause for condonation of delay, as prescribed under the Act and thus, we reject the petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. The case law relied on by assessee in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors.[1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] has no application to the facts of the present case. Since we have rejected the petition for condonation of delay of 449 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable and accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1389 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Revision u/s 263 - deduction u/s 54 EC beyond the stipulated period of six months - final payment was received on 24.12.2015 and the REC Bonds were purchased by the assessee on 30.06.2016 hence the statutory time limit has been exceeded - HELD THAT:- No case has been made out for exercise of power. The Revisionary Authority has held it to be a case where proper enquiries were not carried out and direction has been given to the AO to pass a fresh order after making necessary enquiries/investigation.
Considering the replies on the queries raised based on the documents relied upon the AO has taken a plausible view on the facts. The Ld. PCIT, on the other hand, has not taken into consideration the full facts and has failed to bring out the error in the order and has also not cared to address the legal position as to why the interpretation given by the AO to the six month period can be said to be incorrect. On the other hand we find that the interpretation given by the ld. PCIT that the six month period should be interpreted on a day to-day basis instead of British Calendar month i.e. last date of the month is unsustainable in view of the legal position addressed earlier in this order. Thus, on a perusal of the material available on record, on the other hand find that the AO before passing of the order has made full and adequate enquiries on these issues. Accordingly, we find that the order passed by the ld. PCIT on this issue cannot be sustained.
Capital Gain issue which has also been addressed by the Revisionary Authority in the impugned order, we find that it is an arbitrary order wherein the Revisionary Authority has not even cared to issue any Show Cause Notice to the assessee. We further find that on this issue also, the AO as per material available on record had enquired into the issues and thereafter passed the order. Accordingly, we find that the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
We are of the view where on facts evidenced from the nature of queries raised, the reply available thereon, a plausible view is taken by the AO then in such circumstance a vested right is created in favour of the assessee. The Revisionary Authority referring necessarily to the assessment records available has to demonstrate in the order itself that the order passed is an unsustainable order necessitating the resort to the powers vested by Section 263 of the Act. The powers vested u/s 263 of the Act are not to be exercised merely because the powers are so vested. For unsettling a vested right accrued to the assessee by the passing of a valid order it is necessary and incumbent upon the Revisionary Authority to set out the error and the prejudice caused by the assessment order. The Revisionary Authority necessarily needs to see the records as available to the AO. The order cannot be passed on mere whims and fancies.
The impugned order on a consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case for the reasons herein above is quashed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1388 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Withholding the amount qua which refund is sought - grievance of the petitioner/assessee is that despite intimation concerning refund being received via communication the amount mentioned therein along with the applicable interest has not been remitted - HELD THAT:- Respondents accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. He in particular, will place before us the record disclosing the reasons for withholding the amount qua which refund is sought.
In case the instructions are received to resist the petition, a counter affidavit will be filed before the next date of hearing. List the matter on 03.02.2023.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1387 - ITAT DELHI
Fixed place PE/dependent agent PE - Existence or otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India - attribution of profit to the PE - assessee is a non-resident corporate entity incorporated in Singapore - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2022 (5) TMI 674 - ITAT DELHI] issues arising for consideration are squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2017-18, respectfully following the same, we hold that the assessee had no PE in India. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1386 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD
Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the debt is due and payable and default has occurred. The present application is complete in terms of Section 7(5) of the Code and is within limitation. The applicant is entitled to claim its dues, establishing the default in payment of the financial debt beyond doubt. In light of the facts and records the present application is admitted and CIRP is ordered to be initiated against corporate debtor.
As a consequence of the application being admitted in terms of Section 7(5) of IBC, 2016, moratorium as envisaged under the provisions of Section 14(1) shall follow in relation to the Corporate debtor, prohibiting actions as per clauses (a) to (d) of Section 14(1) of the Code.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1385 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Recovery proceedings - want of conversion of leasehold right to ownership so as to enable dealing with the land for liquidating demands outstanding against the estate of Nanu Ram Agrawalla, since deceased - HELD THAT:- Clients seek conversion of lease hold to ownership. His clients are entitled to such conversion under the Act and the Rules. The fee for conversion stands deposited. In spite thereof, by impugned communication dated 20th February, 2019, the application for conversion was rejected as at this stage.
Rejection purportedly at this stage is on allegation of his clients being involved in which subsequently there has been clarification that the property is not subject matter thereof. Furthermore, his clients have income tax dues and if the property is converted to ownership, recovery of those dues by sale of the property is likely to fetch better consideration.
Learned advocate appears on behalf of Revenue and opposes the writ petition. He submits, his client has filed counter. Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and prays for adjournment to obtain instructions.
List for hearing and disposal on 4th January, 2023.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1384 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessment u/s 143(1) - additions or disallowance u/s 143(1) of the Act other than the amount disclosed by assessee in audit report filed u/s 44AB - Employees' contribution to PF and ESIC were paid beyond the due dates - main contention of ld. AR is that the AO precluded from making any additions or disallowance u/s 143(1) of the Act other than the amount disclosed by assessee in audit report filed u/s 44AB - HELD THAT:- The disallowance made by the AO is to be restricted to the expenditure of ESI & PF not paid within the due date of relevant provisions of the Act. The assessee has been listed these details in the Annexure E to tax audit report filed u/s 44AB of the Act along with return of income. Being so, find no merit in the arguments of assessee’s counsel that AO cannot make disallowance u/s 143(1) of the Act with regard to belated payment of employees’ ESI & PF contribution within due date of respective Act and as held by the coordinate bench in the case of Cemetile Industries [2022 (12) TMI 354 - ITAT PUNE]
The disallowance could be made u/s 143(1) of the Act, which has been shown in the audit report filed u/s 44 AB of the Act as not paid in respect of employees’ share of contribution of PF/ESI within due date stipulated in the respective Act and there is no error committed by the AO in making such disallowance. Accordingly, we direct the AO to make such disallowance disclosed by assessee in his report filed u/s 44AB of the Act column no.20(b) as well as referred in Annexure E and 26(A) – Annexure G, if the assessee has made no suo motu disallowance by itself. Accordingly, direct the AO to limit the disallowance to that extent.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1383 - ITAT BANGALORE
Delayed employees’ contribution in regard to PF/ESI - HELD THAT:- We uphold that the addition can be made in respect of the employees’ contribution in regard to PF/ESI, which has not been deposited within the stipulated date as per the respective Act, since in the case on hand, the assessee has not deposited the employees, contribution within the due date as per the respective Act. Therefore, the disallowance can be made as per section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Hence, respectfully following the judgment in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] the arguments of the assessee is not acceptable.
Disallowance/addition to be made u/s 143(1)(a) - As decided in AA520 VEERAPPAMPALAYAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED - [2021 (4) TMI 1169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from the return of income and patent from the record, Thus to say that the scope of 'incorrect claim' should be circumscribed and restricted by the Explanation which employs the term 'entry' would, in my view, not be correct and the provision must be given full and unfettered play. The explanation cannot curtail or restrict the main thrust or scope of the provision and due weightage as well as meaning has to be attributed to the purposes of section 143(1)(a).- Decided against assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1382 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - Embezzlement of money - allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed offence of money laundering which is punishable under Section 4 of PMLA Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The mandate of law is that apart from Section 45 of PMLA Act, 2002, the requirement under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should also be taken note of. In the case on hand, there are grave allegations that are directed against the petitioner. Also, by the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate, it is clear that the presence of the petitioner could not be secured easily. Learned Standing Counsel states that only after issuance of Look Out Circular, the petitioner could be traced out and arrested. The apprehension of the investigating agency i.e., the Enforcement Directorate is that in case, the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may interrupt the investigating process by threatening the witnesses.
Having considered the submissions thus made, this Court is of the view that even if Section 45 of PMLA Act, 2002 is not applied, independently also, the petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stage when the investigation is in progress and where the allegations are grave in nature and that too, when fraud is committed by embezzlement of an amount to a tune of Rs.318 crores and Indian depositors were deceived. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioner cannot be honoured at this stage.
This Criminal Petition is dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1381 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Attachment of Immovable properties - proceeds of crime - contention is that the Enforcement Directorate has no right to attach the properties of the petitioners and continue with the attachment proceedings in the teeth of the interim order granted by this Court - HELD THAT:- In the event the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, it would defeat the very power of attachment under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the PMLA and if the Enforcement Directorate is permitted to move on with the attachment by seeking a confirmation order or proceeding to sell the attached properties, it would defeat the very proceedings pending before this Court in the predicate offences and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDARY [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT]. Therefore, to keep the right of the petitioners and the respondent/Enforcement Directorate alive, I deem it appropriate to stall further proceedings in the impugned attachment order i.e., the provisional attachment order directing it not to be confirmed or it being taken any further, however, it would not mean that there can be release of the subjects of attachment in favour of the petitioners. If status quo has to be maintained in the proceedings under the IPC for the reason that there is an interim order; status quo has to be maintained in the proceedings of ECIR as well i.e., the impugned proceedings, all of which would mean that they are mutual to each other.
The writ petition is allowed in part.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1380 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment order - predicate offences - right of Enforcement Directorate to attach the properties of the petitioners - reasons to believe - continuation of proceedings under PMLAin the teeth of the interim order of stay of further proceedings granted in the offences relating to IPC.
Whether the Enforcement Directorate had the right to attach the properties of the petitioners? - HELD THAT:- The 3rd respondent/Competent Authority passes an order on 01.08.2022, issuing a provisional attachment order in Provisional Order No.5 of 2022 under sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the PMLA. To arrive at passing of the order, statements of all the petitioners have been recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and several documents are scrutinized. A detailed order is passed in terms of Section 5 of the PMLA and arriving at a conclusion albeit prima facie that he has reason to believe that proceeds of crime are the result of properties standing in the names of the petitioners either movable or immovable.
It is this attachment order that drives the petitioners to this Court. Therefore, the power under Section 5 being executed and the considered finding that he has reason to believe to pass the said order cannot be found fault with. It is in tune with Section 5 of the PMLA. Therefore, the first point that has arisen for consideration is answered against the petitioners, holding that the3 rd respondent has the power to attach the properties. What is required is ‘there should be reasons to believe’. The order passed does reflect application of mind and records reasons to believe that they were proceeds of crime.
Whether the impugned proceedings under PMLA in ECIR No.ECIR/BGZO/04/2019/AD-AKV/1541 should be permitted to be continued in the teeth of the interim order of stay of further proceedings granted in the offences relating to IPC i.e., the predicate offences? - HELD THAT:- If the allegations in the predicate offences are considered to be the flesh, the offences under the PMLA is the blood, they are impregnable. Therefore, if the predicate offences are not permitted to move forward, the impugned proceedings cannot. It would have been altogether different circumstance, if the petitioners were all acquitted of the offences under the IPC or any other predicate offence to which the offence under the PMLA is linked. The situation in the case at hand is not with regard to acquittal, but the stay of the proceedings. Therefore, they are eclipsed and not extinguished.
In the light of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDARY [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] it is deemed appropriate to stall all further action in the impugned proceedings till conclusion of Writ Petition No.14431 of 2020 and Criminal Petition No.7949 of 2020. If the proceedings in the predicate offence are stayed, the impugned proceedings of attachment under the ECIR cannot be permitted to continue. If the proceedings move on in the predicate offence, the offence under the ECIR should also be permitted to continue, failing which, it would defeat the proceedings under the PMLA or the IPC and would fall foul of the judgment of the Apex Court.
The Writ Petition is allowed in part.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1379 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - AO partly accepting assessee’s explanation accepted the source of investment, whereas, he treated the balance amount as unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- As in course of assessment proceedings, while the AO accepted the withdrawals from bank and past savings, he rejected the claim of loan from mother and brother as well as part of agricultural income, claimed to have been received from sale of potato. However, he accepted that the assessee received some amount from the sale of crops like sugarcane and maize.
In course of first appellate proceedings, Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the AO to examine the evidences including sale invoices of agricultural produce and in the remand report, AO has partly accepted assessee’s claim on sale of potato - He has rejected balance amount only because sale invoices were not produced by the assessee.
The fact that the assessee has sold agricultural produce, cannot be disputed because, even, the departmental authorities have accepted a part of assessee’s receipts from sale of agricultural produce. Only a part of amount claimed to have been received from sale of potato has been rejected due to alleged non-furnishing of evidence.
When the assessee has established on record that it had receipts from sale of agricultural produce, only because some invoices relating to sale are not available, assessee’s claim cannot be rejected. More so, considering the reasonable quantum of sale proceeds.
The assessee has furnished the details of agricultural land holdings, which clearly supports assessee’s claim of receipts from sale of agricultural produce. Thus, assessee’s claim that he received Rs.24,00,000 from sale of potato, can be accepted.
In such a scenario, the source of investment in purchase of land stands explained. That being the factual position emerging on record, the addition cannot be sustained.We delete the addition sustained by Commissioner (Appeals).
............
|
