Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1201 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained investment - Held that:- As now the Ld. AR has produced the statement of the FD A/c for our consideration and request to delete the addition confirmed by the A.O. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee for justification of the source of investment in KVPs to the AO. We also disregard the contention of the assessee to limit the finding of investment in KVPs to extent of ₹ 80,000/-. In our opinion, the assessee should not be deprived from the benefit given in the law and should not unnecessary be penalized. Hence we restore this ground of appeal to the AO to adjudicate afresh as per law. - Decided in favour of assessee for the statistical purpose. Treating the deposit as income from undisclosed source - Held that:- A careful analysis to the order of the AO reveals that the AO has recorded the cash deposit entries as business receipt. At the same time the AO treats the entire cash deposit as income without considering any further expenses whatsoever. Here we are of the view that the business receipt can be treated income only after deducting the relevant expenses in relation to business receipt. Besides it is important to note that all the cash was deposited in the business bank of the assessee and the same was duly disclosed in the balance sheet. On this basis we are inclined to apply the effective rate of income on the undisclosed receipts of the assessee. Hence we allow this ground of appeal to the file of AO with the direction to adjudicate this ground afresh as per law. - Decided in favour of assessee for the statistical purpose. Addition as unexplained money - Held that:- Assessee prayed not to treat the entire sum of ₹ 2,98,520/- to the income of assessee and offered to apply the gross profit rate on the sum deposited with the banks. However, the assessee could not explain the source of money deposited in the bank. It was also found that the same bank account was also not disclosed in the income of return. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence from the side of assessee we are of the view that the addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) has been correctly done. Therefore we do not interfere into the orders of Authorities below - Decided against assessee. Disallowance of agricultural income - Held that:- A careful analysis of the Ld. AR submission clearly shows that the assessee has been showing the income from agricultural activities in the return of income for the last many years. The balance sheet also contains the inherited agriculture land. The assessee also pleaded that the agricultural income shown and claimed exemption from the tax is not from broiler business and the AO has wrongly treated the same from broiler business. The relevant detail of agricultural business has not been provided. However in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee to justify his claim before the lower authorities. Hence, this ground of appeal is restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per law - Decided in favour of assessee for the statistical purpose.
|