Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 660 - ITAT DELHI

2015 (9) TMI 660 - ITAT DELHI - TMI - Addition u/s 69 - unaccounted investment - Held that:- The authorities below have not disputed the fact that Shri Adisal was owning 8 acres of land jointly with other co-owners. However, the CIT(A) discarded and rejected the explanation of the assessee, affirming the conclusion of the AO that there has been no evidence given by the assessee to substantiate that he had received proceeds from agricultural produce.

When we observe the copies of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he authorities below that there has been no evidence given by the assessee to substantiate that he (Shri Adisal) received proceeds from agriculture produce which was further given to the assessee towards purchase of steel for construction of assessee’s house. In this situation, primary onus lies on the assessee as per requirement of section 69 of the Act and has been discharged by the assessee. In this situation, the onus was shifted on the AO to show that the explanation submitted by the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.2678/Del/2013, I.T.A.No.2762/Del/2013 - Dated:- 28-8-2015 - SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR For The Respondent : Shri K.P. Guglani, Advocate ORDER PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M. These cross appeals by the revenue as well as by the assessee have been directed against the order of CIT(A), Faridabad dated 18.2.13 in Appeal No. 114/GGN/10-11 for AY 2008-09. Revenue s appeal in ITA No. 2678/D/2013 for AY 2008- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat the aggregate tax effect on the issue raised by the revenue in this appeal is ₹ 3,36,000/- which is less than ₹ 4 lakh. 3. Ld. Counsel of the assessee placing reliance on the recent decision of CIT vs M/s P. S. Jain and Co. Dated 2.8.2010 in ITR 179/1991 submitted that the recent Board Instruction revising the monetary limit to ₹ 4 lakh for filing the appeal before the ITAT on income tax matters is very much applicable to the old references which are still pending undecided .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this being a low tax effect case, the appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed and we dismiss the same in limine without going into merits. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable and is dismissed. Assessee s appeal in ITA 2762/Del/2013 for AY 2008-09 6. Ground no. 3 of the assessee is general in nature which requires no adjudication. The remaining grounds of the assessee read as under:- 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case CIT (Appeals), Farid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

perused the relevant material placed on record. Ld. counsel of the assessee pointed out that the assessee vide reply dated 6.12.2010 submitted before the AO that the impugned sum of ₹ 2,80,000 was deposited by his father Shri Adisal in his Savings Bank account for purchase of steel for construction of his residential house. Ld. Counsel vehemently contended that in this regard, the assessee filed affidavit of Shri Adisal dated 3.12.2010 before the AO along with copies of the revenue patwar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urn or to keep any books of accounts or other records for agricultural income. Ld. Counsel vehemently pointed out that the AO discarded and ignored the vital evidence filed by the assessee to explain the source of impugned amount in the form of affidavit of his father and copies of the revenue patwari records which is not a justified approach. Ld. Counsel further pointed out that the AO treated the sum of ₹ 2,80,000 deposited in the SB account of the assessee by his father as unexplained i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ention to operative part of the impugned order of the CIT(A) and stated that the CIT(A) was not sure about the provisions in which the impugned amount was intended to be added to the income of the assessee as in the operative part of the order, the CIT(A) has mentioned that cash deposited in the bank account should be explained by the assessee, otherwise the same is added back as unexplained income u/s 69 or 69B of the Act. Ld. Counsel again took us through relevant operative part of the assessm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on and while the assessee has discharged his onus to explain the source of investment, no addition can be made to the returned income of the assessee in this regard and therefore, the same may be directed to be deleted. 9. Replying to the above, ld. DR fairly accepted that the assessee submitted affidavit of his father Shri Adisal along with copies of the revenue patwari records for AY 2005-06 which shows that the father of the assessee was owning agriculture land jointly with Shri Total Ram Pra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uthorities below further submitted that as per facts noted by the AO, the assessee made unexplained investment of ₹ 2,80,000 in the construction of house, therefore, the same was rightly added to the returned income of the assessee as per provisions of section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Ld. DR also submitted that mere non-mentioning of section in the assessment order and mentioning of two provisions in the appellate order does not vitiate the justified action of the revenue a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of agriculture income earned from active farming activities of 8 acre of land situated at Village Khatoli, Sultanpur, District Mahendargarh. Therefore, the onus was shifted to the AO to demolish this explanation of the assessee and to establish this allegation that the assessee made unexplained investment of ₹ 2,80,000 out of the income of receipts of undisclosed sources which has not been discharged by the authorities below, therefore, the impugned addition is not sustainable. 11. On car .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

idence to contradict what the AO is submitting in his remand report. It is true that the appellant has been able to produce land records substantiating that his father Sh. Adisal is the owner of land but as has been rightly pointed out by the AO there has been no evidence given by appellant to substantiate that he received proceeds from agricultural produce. Hence, in this case the creditworthiness of the person said to have deposited the money is not established and thus this amount is held to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

relied on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs K. Chinnathambam (supra) wherein reversing the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court, it was held that the onus of proving the source of deposits primarily rested on the person in whose name the deposits appeared in the various banks and there was no evidence to show that members of the public had been placing their deposits with the firm through their relatives and friends and there was no link up of all those amounts with the b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y rested on the person in whose name the deposits appeared in the various banks. However, the present case is pertaining to provisions of sedition 69 of the Act which relates to issue of unexplained investment and as per allegations of the AO, the assessee made investment of ₹ 2,80,000 for purchase of steel for construction of his residential house. The assessee tried to discharge his burden by way of filing affidavit of his father Shri Adisal and copies of the revenue patwari record showi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessee is the owner of the land but the AO has rightly pointed out that there has been no evidence given by the assessee to substantiate that he received proceeds from agricultural produce. The CIT(A) further held that the creditworthiness of the person said to have deposited the money is not established and thus, the impugned amount deserves to be treated as unexplained investment chargeable to tax u/s 69 of the Act. 13. In view of explanation and documentary evidence submitted by the assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version