9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany and submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 on March 22, 1996, declaring an income of Rs. 10,59,837. The entire income was shown by way of agricultural income and thus an exemption was claimed. Initially, the return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on March 25, 1997. Thereafter, it was revealed that huge amount in cash was deposited in the bank account of the appellant and it was further claimed that investment of more than Rs.17 lakhs was made in shares. Accordingly, the case was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. In pursuance to the notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer proceeded ahead to make enquiry with regard to the claim of agricultural income as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The learned Assessing Officer thus, made addition by disbelieving the story of agricultural income of Rs. 12,81,500 which was deposited in cash in bank as the nature and source of such deposit was not substantiated. Further, he made addition on account of dealing in shares as apparent sources were not proved. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short, "the CIT(A)"), Before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the appellant produced some more material in the shape of receipts from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti ; some affidavits and other materials. Since some of the evidence were not provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cultivated the produce, since the land Itself was taken for cultivation in the month of January, 1993, whereas the crop was sold in first week of April, 1993, and could not have been produced and sold within a period of three months ; (8) no evidence at all was adduced by the appellant as to the payment of the one-fourth of agricultural produce to the land owners in pursuance to the lease agreements ; (9) no details relating to expenses of cultivation was filed except copy of books and accounts ; (10) neither evidence in support of the purchase of seed, fertilizers, pesticides was produced nor evidence of electricity consumption made available. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), after going through the remand report, observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Thus, it is not possible that the land taken on 1st of January will be utilized for agricultural purpose. The receipts from the Krishi Upaj Mandi are mainly in respect of arandi, sarsoon and taramira and receipts are dated April, 1993. It means the land taken for cultivation in the month of January, 1993, whereas the crop was sold in first week of April, 1993, which is just not possible. In some of the cases agreement for the period starting from May, 1993, to May, 1994, some are for the period of April 1, 1992, to March 31, 1993. It means part of the land was returned in the month of January and part of it was returned in the month of April as well, as in March, 1993. Income if at all from the land which was in possession during the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... story and the appellant could not prove by acceptable evidence as to the actual earning of agricultural income in view of the reasons given herein before. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also, the appellant reiterated the said facts. The learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, while confirming the addition, held as under : "We have heard both the parties. The Assessing Officer, passed an order under section 144 of the Income-tax Act as the assessee failed to avail of the various opportunities and also failed to give reply to the notice under section 142(1). The assessee filed some additional evidence and such e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and even before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal nothing material was placed except reiterating the facts pleaded before. When the appellant was not the owner of the land and the agreements were full of discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer it was for the appellant to produce the owner to the satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer for examining or by acceptable evidence or otherwise as also in meeting with the various defects/discrepancies pointed, but the appellant did not produce the said land owners and to meet with the various points. Heavy burden lay on the appellant to prove by acceptable evidence but the appellant did not disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
