TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. Addition as undisclosed investment in purchase of immovable property U/s 69 - Held that:- We observe that in the earlier pleadings that the ld. AR had submitted that the assessee was having only agricultural income but while explaining the opening cash balance, the ld AR of the assessee has admitted that the assessee was also having dairy business. There is no evidence available on record, which establishes that the assessee was having any other income than agricultural income. In view of all, we direct to accept the source from agricultural income to the tune of ₹ 2.00 lacs only and the balance amount of ₹ 2,94,290/- remains unexplained, hence addition to that extent is sustained. Hence, ground No. 2 of the appeal is partly allowed. Addition made to Mr. Ankush treating it as advance made from undisclosed sources - Addition treating agriculture income as undisclosed income - Held that:- We find that the assessee has taken the income out of business of ₹ 3,58,662/- as source to explain the advance to Shri Ankush. The agricultural income declared was ₹ 7.80 lacs, for which the separate addition has been also made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed the various additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT by taking following grounds of appeal. 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 25,00,000/- as unexplained money U/s 69A in respect of unsecured loan from Shri S.P. Singh. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 34,94,290/- as undisclosed investment in purchase of immovable property U/s 69. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- made to Mr. Ankush treating it as advance made from undisclosed sources. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 7,80,000/- treating agriculture income as undisclosed income. 5. It was submitted by the ld A.R. of the assessee during the appellate proceedings that the assessee was having 20 bighas of agricultural land. It was claimed that the assessee was only having agricultural income and there was no other source of income. 6. Ground No. 1 of the appeal is against confirming the addition of ₹ 25,00,000/- as unexplained U/s 69A of the Act as unsecured loan from Shri S.P. Singh. While pleading on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. It is claimed that Smt. Prem Bai has received amount from the sale agreement by her husband s agricultural land, situated in village Sainthly, Tehsil- Alwar. The amount was received in two installments i.e. ₹ 15.00 lacs on 29/03/2011 and ₹ 15.00 lacs on 05/04/2011. The assessee has disclosed the cash in hand of ₹ 4,94,290/-. The source of ₹ 30.00 lacs was out of the amount received from Smt. Prem Bai and balance of ₹ 4,94,290/- out of the cash in hand. The assessee has submitted the confirmation from Smt. Prem Bai. The ledger account of Maya Devi (assessee) in the books of Smt. Prem Devi was also submitted for the F.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12. It was submitted that due to concessional stamp duty leviable on the sale transactions executed in the name of females, therefore, the assessee purchased agricultural land on 11/4/2011 in her name and the assessee has taken advance against the land in the name of her husband with the consent of the husband to arrange the fund for purchase of agricultural land. It was also submitted that the assessee has returned the advance to the intended purchaser in the next financial year for the reason that the terms and cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 30.00 lacs has confirmed the same in her statement recorded during the remand proceedings. She has also disclosed the source from where the amount she has received the amount. She has also disclosed the source of the amount being compensation received from RIICO. She has also submitted her income tax details and books of account where in the amount is duly reflected. The ld. CIT(A) has simply dismissed the claim of the assessee regarding the genuineness of the transaction of ₹ 30.00 lacs from Prem Bai for the reason that if the amount has been repaid then also the source remains unexplained. As mentioned earlier, this amount was returned in the subsequent year not during the year under consideration, therefore such observation of the ld. CIT(A) is unjustified. Considering all these relevant facts relevant for the financial year under consideration, we find that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition to the tune of ₹ 30.00 lacs received from Smt. Prem Devi. Hence we direct to delete the same. 12. Further the balance amount of ₹ 4,94,290/-, for which he has submitted that it was out of the opening cash balance of ₹ 5,02,500/-,. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advance from Prem Bai on 05/04/2011 15,00,000 Loan from Sh. S.P. Singh 25,00,000 Income from business as declared 3,58,662 Agriculture income 7,80,000 Opening cash in hand )opening 20,02,500 minus 15,00,000 considered above) 5,02,500 Total 71,41,162 Application of funds Drawings for house hold exp. 60,000 Purchase of agriculture land 59,94,290 Advance to Ankush 10,00,000 Total 70,54,290 15. We have heard both the sides on this issue. We find that the assessee has taken the income out of business of ₹ 3,58,662/- as source to explain the advance to Shri Ankush. The agricultural income declared was ₹ 7.80 lacs, for which the separate addition has been also made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the advance to Shri Ankush of ₹ 10.00 lacs which apparently ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
