TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf declared this expenditure in this property and there being no other evidence to the contrary in the possession of the Department, in view of our above findings where we have accepted an expenditure of Rs. 2,31,000 out of Rs. 3,10,000 towards the shops, we have to accept this claim of the assessee as well. Therefore, we order to delete the amount of Rs. 80,000 from the hands of the assessee. Disallowance on agricultural income - We are of the considered opinion that the AO was not justified in making additions by rejecting a part of the agricultural income simply on the basis of non-availability of sale vouchers because an agriculturist is not required to maintain any books of account. Copies of Girdawari are on record, which prove that crops were grown on the land belonging to the assessee. The statement of the assessee that he provided irrigation facility to his neighbours on cash payment, also in a way, supports the case of the assessee as from this fact it is proved that the assessee had enough irrigation facility to grow crops. The assessee has also filed a certificate of Assistant Agricultural Officer wherein the average production of particular crop in the area in which ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of survey, the assessee had surrendered an amount of Rs. 8,00,000 on account of investment made in the immovable properties while making his statement which was recorded on 9th Nov., 1998 and also deposited advance tax accordingly. But the assessee did not include surrendered amount in his return of income. The assessee was required to file valuation report of the shops situated at bus stand, Khinvsar. The assessee filed this report dt. 18th Jan., 2002 given by one Shri Onkarnath Khanna, Jodhpur according to which the cost of construction of these shops was estimated at Rs. 2,64,609. But the assessee showed cost of these ships at Rs. 1,25,000 including Rs. 1,00,000 being cost of the land. In his statement of affairs filed along with the return of income, the assessee explained the difference between costs of construction shown by him. The assessee claimed that he had sold an agricultural land along with tubewell situated at Osian Road, Khinvsar for Rs. 3,10,000 on 23rd April, 1998 and the sale proceeds were applied in the construction of these shops to the extent of Rs. 2,30,000 and the remaining sum of Rs. 80,000 was spent in the construction of other property during the financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been spent somewhere else and the Revenue has also not established this fact. Therefore, when there are two possibilities which come out of a given set of facts, one which is in the favour of the assessee, has to be accepted and the only fact that the assessee made this claim at the very fag end of the assessment proceedings, would not be rejected entirely although it has to be deeply scrutinized. Be that as it may, as we have stated above, the version which suits the assessee has to be accepted in the absence of any contrary proof on record. Moreover, the assessee had filed an affidavit before the learned AO which was ignored being not properly raised but this affidavit filed before the AO clearly spelt out the claim of the assessee. This fact goes to support the case of the assessee to some extent. We are of the considered opinion that even though the claim of use of sale proceeds was taken at a later point of time, yet this has a great evidentiary value. The factum of sale stand established and there is no evidence that this amount was used somewhere else therefore, this explanation has to be considered in the correct perspective without simply ignoring it to be an afterthou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified in making additions by rejecting a part of the agricultural income simply on the basis of non-availability of sale vouchers because an agriculturist is not required to maintain any books of account. Copies of Girdawari are on record, which prove that crops were grown on the land belonging to the assessee. The statement of the assessee that he provided irrigation facility to his neighbours on cash payment, also in a way, supports the case of the assessee as from this fact it is proved that the assessee had enough irrigation facility to grow crops. The assessee has also filed a certificate of Assistant Agricultural Officer wherein the average production of particular crop in the area in which agricultural land of the assessee are situated have been given. These facts also support the version of the assessee. The sum total of the above discussion is that the assessee has been able to establish his case and the Department has not been able to rebut the same. Therefore, this ad hoc addition cannot survive and hence we order to delete the addition of Rs. 1,00,000. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 338/Jd/2003 (1999-2000) 14. This is an app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
