Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 25 - ITAT CHENNAIAddition on investment in properties - HELD THAT:- With regard to the claim of the assessee that the sum of ₹.3,83,000/- would have been paid earlier in the assessment year 1998-99 for the purchase of the Crawford land property, the assessee has not brought on record any material evidence. Moreover, from the purchase deed, the AO noticed that the entire consideration was paid for the purchase of the Crawford land property on the day of registration on 09.05.2001, which is relevant to the assessment year 2002-03. In the absence of any material evidence, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the authorities below. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. Addition made on account of investment in individual money lending and interest income from private financing - HELD THAT:- As in assessee’s partner’s case [2016 (10) TMI 882 - ITAT CHENNAI] Tribunal has deleted the addition by observing that estimation of interest made by the AO at 25% was highly arbitrary and without any supporting materials. The above case law has no application to the facts of the present, because, by considering the system of money lending business explained by the assessee as well as gist of computation of income filed in the return of income for the assessment year 1999-2000 is the only basis for quantifying the rate of interest in the assessment year under appeal by the AO. Assessee’s partner’s case, the basis for quantification of interest was not on record and nothing was available in the Tribunal’s order. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the above additions made by the Assessing Officer was validly confirmed by the CIT(A). Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee stand dismissed. Disallowance of agricultural income - HELD THAT:- What is possible to earn from the agricultural land is not the matter of dispute. In the absence of books of accounts for the agricultural operations in the dry land of 5.5 hectares, the Assessing Officer estimated the income at ₹.38,000/-, is admittedly very low, but the claim of the assessee of earning ₹.1,10,000/- (assessee’s share) from the dry land is also exorbitantly higher. Though the Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the agricultural sector continues to remain unorganized and the agricultural produces are sold in an unregulated market, considering the relevant financial year as well as lack of details of the crop cultivated in the dry land, we are of the considered opinion that 50% of the claim of assessee’s share of income would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we give relief to the extent of ₹.55,000/- and the balance disallowance of ₹.55,000/- stands confirmed. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
|