Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 925 - AT - Income TaxTreatment to agriculture income - shown in the return of income as income from other sources - Held that:- issue was decided by CIT(A) against the assessee on two counts; first basis of the decision of CIT(A) is that the ownership of ancestral land in the hands of the parents cannot be equated with the ownership of agricultural land in the hands of the assessee and therefore, there cannot be any agricultural income in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity. The second basis of the decision of CIT(A) is that apart from failure of the assessee to establish the ownership of the land in question, the assessee has also not brought on record any evidence for the said agricultural income by bringing on record bills of sale proceeds and expenses incurred for agricultural operations. Before us also, none of these two aspects were established by the assessee i.e. the ownership of the agricultural land in the hands of the assessee and the basis of computing agricultural income by bringing evidence on record in respect of agricultural sale proceeds and expenses incurred for carrying out agricultural activities. Under these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against assessee. Unexpalined money - collection of cheque (received by the appellant on sale of jewellery) in his bank account of the appellant/his wife - Held that:- In assessment year 2005-06, we have already held that benefit should be allowed to the assessee to the extent of 100 gms. of gold jewellery as per CBDT Circular No. 1916 dated 11th May 1994 and on the same line, in the present year also, we hold that the benefit should be allowed to the assessee in respect of ownership of jewellery by his wife to the extent of entire jewellery because the same is less than 500 gms. However, the capital gain on sale of this jewellery has to be assessed and for this reason, we restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh decision. The assessee has to bring evidence on record regarding cost and year of acquisition. If the assessee can establish that the said jewellery was acquired prior to 01/04/1981 then Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 should be accepted as cost of jewellery and thereafter indexation of benefit should be allowed to the assessee and long term capital gain, if any, should be computed. With these observations, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Cash found in course of search - Held that:- As per the assessment order in the case of Shri K. N. Singh Patel, we find that no doubt disclosure has been made of ₹ 10 crore which included ₹ 25 lac on account of cash seized but it is also seen in the same assessment order that the searches were carried out at 19 places, as listed on page No. 220 of the paper book. The name of the assessee is also appearing in that list at S.No. 13 but it is not shown to us or to any of the authorities below that how much cash was found and seized at these 19 places where searches were carried out. If the assessee could have shown that the cash found and seized were ₹ 25 lac or less then it can be accepted that the entire cash found and seized in all searches were covered in the disclosure made by Shri K. N. Singh Patel but in the absence of that, it cannot be said that all the cash found and seized in course of all these 19 searches were included in the disclosure made by Shri K. N. Singh Patel on account of cash found. Hence, we do not find any merit in this explanation of the assessee regarding the cash found and seized in the hands of the present assessee. Benefit to the extent of ₹ 65,375/- is already allowed by the authorities below because against the cash found of ₹ 8,65,365/-, addition of ₹ 8 lac only was made. Considering all these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue also. - Decided against assessee.
|