TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edabad [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] erred on facts as also in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,25,008/- being the agricultural produce sale proceeds. The addition may kindly be deleted. 3.0 The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 60,000/- made on account of low household withdrawal. The addition may kindly be deleted. In the case of Ramjibhai G Vithani: 2.0 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XX, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] erred on facts as also in law in confirming the addition of ₹ 1,90,881/- made on account of sale of Kadab to Shri Devrajbhai Shamjibhai. The addition may kindly be deleted. 3.0 The learned CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bhagyoday Ginning Factory, Dhasa, recorded on oath on 01-12-2006. The assessee was confronted with the result of enquiry and copy of statement was also provided to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. But from the assessment order, it is clear that the assessee could not controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer are hereby upheld and the addition made in confirmed. 4 The Ld. A.R. before us vehemently contended that the Assessing Officer was not correct in making the inquiry from the partner of Bhagyoday Ginning Factory to whom the assessee sold agricultural produce vide bill No. 268 dated 24-02-2004 who denied that the firm has purchased the agriculture produce from the assessee. The assessee was not allowed cross-examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 1500/- attached at Page 7. The said cotton weighing 6,140/- Kgs. Was delivered through Panthraj Transport Co. vide lorry receipt Nos. 68 and 69 (copies attached at Page 8 to 9) in truck No. GJ 13 X- 7149 GJ 4 V-2454. All these positive evidences prove beyond doubt that the assessee regularly produces cotton from his agricultural land. All these aspects are ignored by the Assessing Officer and merely relied on the statement of the partner of erstwhile firm of M/s. Bhagyoday Ginning Factory and disallowed the above agricultural production and treated it as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. The record further show that the Assessing Officer vide order u/s. 143(3) dated 29.12.2005 for A.Y. 2003-04 accepted agricultural income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is bogus. The Assessing Officer has not brought the necessary evidence on record and has not given the opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the partner of Bhagyoday Ginning Factory. The transaction cannot be regarded to be bogus on the basis of the inquiry conducted at the back of the assessee. We, therefore delete the addition of ₹ 1,25,008/- made under section 68 and direct the Assessing Officer to treat the said receipt as a part of the receipt from agriculture produce. Thus, the ground No. 1 is allowed. 6. Ground No. 2 relates to the addition made on account of low household withdrawal amounting to ₹ 60,000/- The Ld. AR vehemently contended that the Assessing Officer made lump sum addition of ₹ 60,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no doubt creates a suspicion, but suspicion alone is not sufficient in making the addition to the income of the assessee. The AO should have investigated the matter further and should have brought on record clinching evidence to show that the drawings shown by the assessee for household expense was not sufficient to meet the household expenses. In absence of any such evidence, in our considered opinion, the additions made cannot be sustained in law. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have carefully considered rival submissions, perused the material on record. We noted that the addition of ₹ 60,000/- has been made by observing that the assessee has not shown withdrawal for a hous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
