Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 593 - AT - Income TaxAddition of agricultural income - agricultural land was in the name of the deceased father of the assessee at Dholpur and the assessee had not filed any proof regarding the agricultural activity carried out on the said land - Held that:- The assessee filed certain acknowledgements of income-tax returns and in all the years from 1996-97 to 2004-05, the assessee has been consistently declaring the agricultural income and it is not the case of the revenue that in any of the previous years, such an income was treated as the income from undisclosed sources. Learned CIT(A), therefore, rightly concluded that the khasrakhatauni indicating the annual lagan establishes that the land in dispute was put to agricultural use and the assessee has been consistently declaring the same in the return of income and the revenue has been accepting the same without raising any objection. Reliance of the learned CIT(A) on the decision in the case of Radhaswami Satsang vs CIT [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] in respect of the necessity of following the rule of consistency cannot be found fault with. On this aspect, the approach of the learned CIT(A) is perfect and needs to be confirmed. We accordingly decline to interfere with the same. Hence, ground No.1 of the appeal is dismissed. Addition u/s 68 - identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions of all the partners -- Held that:- When the learned CIT(A) transmitted the documents submitted by the assessee to the learned AO calling for the report, record speaks that there was no response from the learned AO in spite of three reminders. No explanation is forthcoming from the revenue even before us as to what prevented the learned AO to verify the documents to submit report if there is a serious objection on the identity and creditworthiness of such partners. We are convinced that the reasoning of the learned CIT(A) that he addressed a letter to DIT (Systems) for the purpose of identity and creditworthiness of these partners and to proceed with the matter having analyzed the report and the documents submitted by the assessee. No other course was left open to the learned CIT(A) in view of the non response of the learned AO to the letter dated 22.5.2014 of the learned CIT(A). In these circumstances, we hold that the approach of the learned CIT(A) cannot be found fault with and the learned CIT(A) did the possible exercise that should have been done in the given circumstances. - Decided against revenue
|