9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal has erred in law and facts of the case by failing to appreciate that in light of inextricable facts regarding the 'Sole source' of income of the appellant, i.e. 'Salary income' as a 'Machine operator' with M/s Nestle India Ltd. r.w. the fact that the deficit as regards investment in purchase of new agricultural lands had emerged during the period when ancestral agricultural lands were sold, the source of the said investment thus safely, logically and rather inescapably could only be related to the sale of the agricultural lands, pursuant whereto the said amount could only be considered under the head 'Capital gains'? 4) Whether the Tribunal had erred in law and facts of the case by failing to appreciate that the lower authorities while making an addition w.r.t. the source of the deficit investment in the hands of the appellant had gravely erred by failing to exercise the discretion, specifically in light of the explanation of the appellant? 2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The assessee is employed as a Machine Operator with M/s Nestle India Ltd., Moga and filed his return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h deposited and withdrawals made. From the said account, the assessee earned interest income of Rs. 38,066/- (Rs. 24,485/- + Rs. 13,58,1/-). The said interest income was not shown in the computation of income. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 38,066/- and added in the returned income of the assessee on account of non showing of interest income earned from saving bank account and also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately for concealment of income. On being asked to furnish the copy of account maintained with Allahabad Bank, Kolkata Main Branch, the assessee failed to produce the statement of account of the said bank. As per the AIR information, a total transaction made with the said bank account during the period 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 was at Rs. 42,00,000/- and the said amount was added to the returned income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of assessee at Rs. 43,86,580/-. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidence, inter alia, on the grounds that he has been filing hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ource of income for all the years had been the said salary income. Further, the amounts deposited in the Allahabad bank account are clearly receipts from the sale proceeds of ancestral agricultural land belonging to the appellant and his brother and therefore it is possible that the assessee could not comprehend that he was liable to explain the entries pertaining to him/ his brother of sale of agricultural land. It is also seen that the evidence filed by the appellant has not been constructed afresh and in fact is documented in the form of registered deed which are clear evidence of sale of agricultural land and the proceeds thereof. The entirety of circumstances and the facts detailed above make it clear that the same could not be filed at the time of assessment because of limited time available and apparent lack of appreciation of the legal requirement on the part of the assessee in this regard. It could be easily termed as a technical flaw on the part of the appellant especially when no amount is being claimed to be pertaining to be belonging to third party at all. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Patiala vs. Chitosho Motors in Income Tax Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct matter of challenge by the Revenue and that the amounts deposited in the Allahabad Bank are clearly receipts from the sale proceeds of ancestral agricultural land belonging to the assessee and his brother. Therefore, it is possible that the assessee could not comprehend that he was liable to explain the entries pertaining to him/his brother of sale of agricultural land. Further, the evidence filed by the assessee has not been constructed afresh and in fact is documented in the form of registered deed which are clear evidence of sale of agricultural land and the proceeds thereof. The cash flow statement furnished by the assessee had rightly been admitted by the ld. CIT(A), which is not in dispute. As mentioned hereinabove, the ancestral agricultural land had been sold, which was held jointly by the assessee along with his brother Sh. Amarjit Singh and agricultural land, which has been purchased by the assessee along with his brother Sh. Amarjit Singh in equal share is also not in dispute. Therefore, the deficit of Rs. 11,75,000/- belongs equally to the assessee and his brother Sh. Amarjit Singh and assessee alone cannot be said to be liable for the entire deposit of Rs. 11,75,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
