9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order of the Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak, Dated 19.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2013-2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,04,800/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny because of the agricultural income. The assessee produced books of account which were test-checked. During the appellate proceedings the matter was referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehalf of these persons. The assessee also filed copy of agreement with M/s Satyam Organic Farming P. Ltd. to whom land was given to use. The A.O, however, accepted income of only Rs. 20,000/- per acre for 24 acres of land, which was challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). It was also contended that Mr. Suresh Kumar was not authorized by assessee to give statement. 3. The A.O. submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instance. Therefore, the contention of assessee is incorrect that he was not authorised to make the statement. The A.O. also reported that assessee remain non co-operative during the remand proceedings and did not produce any evidence to substantiate the claim of earning of agricultural income as was claimed before Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the material on record noted that inspi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, confirmed the addition and held that addition of Rs. 16,88,000/- shall have to be treated as income from other sources. Appeal of assessee has been dismissed. 5. Assessee has been notified the date of hearing through Registered post. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. 6. I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the findings of the authorities below. The Ld. D.R. contended th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
