Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 550 - ITAT CHENNAIUnexplained investment in purchase of land on protective basis - substantive addition relating to present assessee has been deleted in the case of Shri Ku.Pa. Krishnan. [2023 (10) TMI 448 - ITAT CHENNAI] - AO has made impugned addition by rejecting the claim of agricultural income - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of certificate of Village Administrative Officer as placed on record, it could be seen that the assessee is having sufficient cultivable land. The same is also backed up by Adangal, lease copies which support the claim of the assessee that it had land holding giving rise to agricultural income. Therefore, the claim of the assessee qua earning of agricultural income was to be accepted in all the years. AO is directed to treat the income as agricultural income only. Addition of undisclosed investment in land in at Vadagaunchi, investment in House Property situated at Trichy, investment in flat situated at Adyar - As the undisputed position that emerges is that the assessee has disclosed the above investment in her return of income which has been filed much before the date of search in the case of Shri Ku.Pa. Krishnan. These investments are duly disclosed in the Balance Sheet. Therefore, the impugned additions, in that respect, is not sustainable. We order so. Investment in property situated at Trichy AR, in the written submissions, has submitted that the cost of improvement on assessee’s land was only to the extent of Rs. 10.16 Lacs and therefore, the impugned addition was to be restricted to that extent. Accepting the same, we direct Ld. AO to reduce the impugned addition to the extent of Rs. 10.16 Lacs as against Rs. 11.59 Lacs. Income from house property - AR submitted that the house property situated at Nehru Nagar was self-occupied property and therefore, no income need to be computed against the same. With respect to other properties situated at Fernhill (Kodaikanal) and Banker’s Colony is concerned, Ld. AR has submitted that the estimation of rental income is on the higher side. We concur with the submissions that no income on property situated at Nehru Nagar need to be computed this being self-occupied property. However, the estimation of rental income against other two properties is quite reasonable. Therefore, the addition to that extent, in all the years, is sustained. The corresponding grounds, in all the years, stand disposed off accordingly. Gifts as been received by the assessee. However, the assessee is unable to file any details of the same. Therefore, this addition, in both the years, stand confirmed. Addition of FDR and interest thereon from AYs 1994-95 to 1997-98 stand confirmed since this addition has been deleted by us in the case of Shri Ku.Pa. Krishnan.
|