Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 1095 - ITAT AHMEDABADUnexplained investment for purchase of land - Assessee contended that the investment has been made by him out of the disclosure made by the partnership firm which has already suffered to tax - HELD THAT:- Thus being a close nexus between the assessee and the firm, the contention raised by the assessee cannot be rejected without any strong reason. As such, the onus shifted upon the revenue to prove that the contention of the assessee is wrong, and the income disclosed by the partnership firm has been used for some other purpose but what we find that no such detail is forthcoming from the other of the authority below. In addition to the above, we also note that the assessee along with other partners has made disclosure of the income of the firm in pursuance to the search u/s 132. Had there been no nexus between the assessee and Om Corporation, there was no occasion for the assessee to make the disclosure along with the other partner under his signature on behalf of the firm. Thus, in such fact and circumstances the contention of the assessee cannot be rejected. It is equally important to note that there was no information available on record about the utilization of the money disclosed by the partnership as income except the investment made by the assessee which is also evident from the financial statement of Om Corporation in the year ending 31/03/2011. As such, we have perused the financial statement of OM Corporation for the year ending as on 31/03/2011, we note that the M/s Om Corporation has shown an advance for the sum which makes abundantly clear that the disclosure made by the firm has been utilized in the investment of land as discussed above. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. Addition on account of cash found during the search operation - AO during the assessment proceedings found that there was cash found as on the date of search, the source of which was explained by the assessee out of the agriculture - assessee has also submitted the agriculture bills in support of his claim - AO found that the agriculture bills were not pertaining to the period in dispute and therefore he treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, it is the onus upon the assessee to justify his stand based on the documentary evidence that he has earned agriculture income in the year under consideration. Indeed, the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon him based on the documents. However, because the assessee in the earlier AY has disclosed the agricultural income, the possibility of having agriculture income in the year under consideration cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play and to put an end to the ongoing dispute, we are of the view that justice will be served to the assessee and the revenue if 50% of the allege agriculture income is treated as income from the agriculture activity. Accordingly, we direct the AO to restrict the addition being 50% of agriculture as income from undisclosed sources. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed.
|