9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of Rs. 1,44,78,665/-, being loans received from Shri. Shankarrao Talekar (HUF) Rs. 19,00,000/-; Shri Bhagwanrao Talekar (HUF) Rs. 96,50,000/-; Shri. Balasaheb Patil (Indl.)Rs.5,20,000/-; Shri. Bhagwanrao V.Kanade Rs. 8,00,000/-; Alok Poultry farms Rs. 9,42,000/-; Alok Talekar Rs. 6,66,665/-, made by the AO and that sustained by the 1st appellate authority under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is unwarranted, unjustified, contrary to the provisions and scheme of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. The addition made by the AO and that confirmed by the 1st appellate authority be deleted. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 2. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing 3. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee is a HUF and derives income from dairy business and also from the agricultural activity. Originally, assessee filed the return of income on 31-03-2012 disclosing total income of Rs. 1,09,673/-. Assessee disclosed the net agricultural income of Rs. 50,96,664/- which includes agricultural receipts of Rs. 73,51,294/-. He claimed Agricultural expenses of Rs. 22,54,630/-. Subsequently, assessee filed the revised return on 19-01-2013 declaring income of Rs. 7,66,979/-, furnishing the net agricultural income of Rs. 18,46,053/-. Eventually, AO determined the assessed income of the assessee at Rs. 2,78,51,370/-. Detai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee owns more than 40 Acres of land and grew various crops such as Mangoes, Sugarcane, Jawar, Harbhara, Wheat, Toor, Udit, Corn, etc. Assessee earned gross agricultural income of above Rs. 29 lakhs and it includes mango-specific Agricultural income of Rs. 5,19,775/-. Excluding the mango-specific Agricultural income, the Assessee claimed the balance of agricultural income of Rs. 24,38,284/- in the revised return of income. The AO, in the assessment proceedings, proceeded to make addition as per the discussion given in Para 14.4 of his order. The details of which are given as under : Sl.No. Particulars Amount i. Being amount received for sale of sugarcane 900 Quintals @ Rs. 2300 per quintal as per Satbara No.41 Rs.20,70,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tracks of Agricultural land, filed the relevant 7/12 extracts, sale bills of Agricultural produce etc. These evidences are conveniently ignored by the AO in the assessment. Further, Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee may be given another opportunity before AO to discharge the onus. Alternatively, assessee submitted that Tribunal may decide the allowable Agricultural income considering the facts of the case. Accordingly, assessee left the issue to the Bench. Further, Ld.Counsel submitted that there is need for estimating agricultural income of the assessee. 7. On the other hand, Ld.DR for the Revenue dutifully relied on the orders of AO and CIT(A). 8. We have heard the parties on the issue relating to claim of Agricultural income and find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that of the income from Mango Crop. AO allowed all claims relating to the said Mango Crops. Therefore, the debate is restricted to the Agricultural Produce of the crops other than the Mango Crop. However, AO denied all claims relating to income from 'other crops'. On perusal of the assessment proceedings, we find that the assessee is not in possession of direct and sustainable 3rd party evidences both on Agricultural income as Expenses. Therefore, in our considered opinion, we find it is a case of mere estimation and therefore, there is no point in remanding to the file of the AO for fresh examination. We are also not with the AO in treating the Agricultural income of Rs. 24,38,284/- as the unaccounted income of the assessee entirely fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AO to restrict the claim to 50% of the Rs. 24,38,284/- which include the relief of Rs. 2,33,571/- given by the CIT(A). Other Additions (Para 13.1 to 13.5 of AO's order) 9. Referring to the other additions discussed in Para Nos. 13.1 to 13.5 of the assessment order, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all these addition revolves around the unsecured loans received by the assessee from the loan creditors. Suspecting the sources and genuineness of the transactions for one reason or the other, AO disbelieved the claim of the assessee. Filing inadequate documentation is also a reason for addition. The said reasons includes (1) confirmation letters are filed and not the bank statements of the creditors; or (2) bank statements are f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
