Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 85 - AT - Income TaxNature of income - agricultural income - deposits in the bank account - Held that:- It is absolutely clear that income derived are in the nature of agricultural income. CIT(A) have analysed the fact that Department had some point or the other either prior to the block assessment period or even after in the succeeding assessment year have taken a view that assessee is having agricultural income and, therefore, findings of CIT(A) is correct that all deposits in the bank account are from agricultural income. This moment on the remand report of the Assessing Officer wherein he has denied the fact that assessee has produced all the documents as proof of agricultural income whereas in the contrary, the records itself speak that all the evidences regarding agricultural income were produce before the Department. It is also pertinent to note that the same Assessing Officer, who has refused the claim of the assessee as agricultural income in the remand report, has accepted assessee’s claim of agricultural income in the later year. - Decided in favour of assessee Addition on account of unexplained investment - Held that:- As it was explained before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) that all deposits in FDRs were out of agricultural income. Once agricultural income has been accepted, question of making addition on account of unexplained investment does not arise. CIT(A) has dealt with the deposits in FDRs and interest accrued separately. Out of total addition made, the amount to the extent of ₹ 1,29,52,434/- has been found to be unexplained to the satisfaction of the CIT(A) and that too under different heads. We do not find any infirmity with the findings given by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, ground No.4 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Addition made appearing in the name of Shri Raghuraj Pratap Singh - Held that:- The addition referred to in this ground of appeal has been made on protective basis in the hands of the assessee. Since the same addition has been made on substantive basis in the hands of Raghuraj Pratap Singh and the order in his case has become final, question of making separate addition again in the hands of the assessee does not arise. We, therefore, dismiss these grounds of appeal. Income from The Bazari and rent of HUF - Held that:- From the order of the ld. CIT(A) it is absolutely clear that this addition of ₹ 7,03,846/- belongs to HUF and it has to be assessed in the hands of HUF and therefore the same should not have been assessed in individual assessment. We, therefore, direct deletion of this amount. Unexplained deposit - as vehemently argued by the ld. A.R. of the assessee that they were excessive in nature - Held that:- We are not convinced with the contentions of the ld. A.R. of the assessee and therefore, we dismiss these grounds.
|