TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital assets in which he has made certain improvement. Cost of this improvement was not allowed to the assessee while computing the capital gain. The AO has alleged that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars for visiting the assessee with penalty. But he failed to demonstrate which particular was inaccurate. It is a claim made by the assessee, which cannot be substantiated with documentary evidence, therefore, it was disallowed. But how the claim was inaccurate, is not discernible. Thus, no penalty is imposable on this count also. Salary income addition - as per the assessee, he has disclosed the income as per Form no.16. The assessee was of the opinion that the expenditure i.e. constituency allowance, office expenditure are exempt being Member of Parliament. He harboured a belief that his salary income is also exempt - Held that:- To our mind the assessee failed to give any plausible explanation for non-inclusion of his salary as Member of Parliament. There cannot be any reason to habour such a belief, more so, it was not brought our notice that this was the first year of receipt of salary as an Member of Parliament. Therefore, the ld.AO was justified in visiting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... produced by the ld.CIT(A) in para 4.2. He drew our attention towards such explanation. It reads sunder: 4.2 SUBMISSION OF THE A.R. :- The appellant submitted as under :- 1. An addition of ₹ 1,66,267 was on the basis of form-16 attached and shown in return of income tax, which was clearly shown in return of income. Nothing was concealed. 2. An addition of ₹ 1,90,000 was against agriculture income in absence of evidence. The order itself says there was no concealment. Agriculture income was shown in all the years and I was having evidence for all these years, shown to A.O only the evidence was misplaced even receipts fro the next year was shown, payments received for the year was reflected in Bank statement also. This addition itself is harsh to me penalty on this amount is unwarranted. 3. An Addition for cash diff of ₹ 74,996 was made. This was explained to the Ld A.O. that this addition is not correct as it was due to just the diff of date mentioned in voucher and entered in the computer, entries on vouchers were correct and there was negative cash balance because of wrong date at the time of entry in software, change of date was not done, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curate particulars of such income or fringe benefits: Explanation 1- Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act, (A) Such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the CIT to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income or such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of Clause (c) of this subsection, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. 7. A bare perusal of this section would reveal that for visiting any assessee with the penalty, the Assessing Officer or the Learned CIT(Appeals) during the course of any proceedings before them should be satisfied, that the assessee has; (i) concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. As far as the quanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1)(c) would be deemed to be representing the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. 8. In the light of the above, let us examine the facts of the assessee s case. With regard to the addition of ₹ 1,90,000/- claimed by the assessee as agriculture income is concerned, the case of the AO is that the assessee failed to furnish evidence showing generation of agriculture income. The explanation of the assessee is that he was having evidence for all these years and shown to the AO in subsequent years, meaning thereby, the assessee was having agriculture land. He failed to produce bills and vouchers for the expenditure incurred in connection with the agriculture activities or bills exhibiting sale of agriculture produce. But it is pertinent to keep in mind that a person has been claiming agriculture income in the past and in subsequent years and having agriculture land, then the addition to his income for not showing exact details of agriculture income can be justified, but it cannot be said that claim made was false. It could be appreciated that a particular quantity of land can generate an income from agriculture activity. Such income could be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
