Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 253 - ITAT AHMEDABADUnexplained investments u/s 69 - income of the assessee from the agricultural operations - HELD THAT:- There is neither any discussion in the order of the authorities below nor any submission of the assessee before them (authorities below) suggesting that the assessee was carrying out agricultural operations on the land of the other parties. In the absence of such information, the learned CIT-A, in our considered view has rightly not taken the cognizance of the additional agricultural income of ₹ 12 lakhs. Quantum of the household expenses - The entire amount shown by the assessee was treated as income available for investment. It is not out of place to mention that the assessee has family members such as his brother, brother’s wife and his wife. Therefore, some deduction has to be made from the income of the assessee towards the drawing for the household expenses before allocating the same for the purpose of investment. The next issue arises to determine the quantum of the household expenses. Indeed, the assessee is privy to such information. But the assessee has not furnished any information qua to the household expenses. Thus there remains no alternate except to estimate the household expenses on reasonable basis. In this connection, we find that the learned CIT (A) has treated an amount of ₹ 6 lakhs as household expenses but failed to bring any basis for the estimation of such expenses. Therefore in interest of justice and fair play, we deemed it appropriate to treat such expenses to the tune of ₹ 3 Lacs only. It is also important to note that such household expenses should not be taken as the precedent for any other case of the assessee. It is just on ad hoc basis. Benefit considering the past savings of the assessee - In view of the above concurrent findings of the AO for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 with respect to the past savings and without allocating any expense towards the household expenses, it seems to us that no further benefit to the assessee should be granted. Accordingly we are not convinced with the contention of the learned AR. There was the investment in the Life Insurance premium paid by the assessee and the onus was upon the assessee justify the source of investments based on the documentary evidence which the assessee failed. As such the assessee has issued Gram Sarpunch certificates where in the income of ₹ 20 lakhs from the source of agricultural operation was declared. But the assessee has not brought any evidence suggesting that there was more income earned from the agricultural operations than the certified income of ₹ 20 lakhs. AR made a reference to the judgment of P.K. Noorjahan [1997 (1) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] but to our humble understanding the ratio of such judgment is not applicable in the case on hand. AO may make the addition on account of unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act, if the assessee failed to justify the source of such investments. Admittedly, the assessee failed to justify the source of investments and therefore we are of the view that addition has been rightly made by the AO which was rightly confirmed by the learned CIT (A). Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the authorities below except to grant the relief of ₹ 3 Lacs for the household expenses against the estimate made by the learned CIT (A) for ₹ 6 lakhs. - Decided partly on favour of assessee.
|