TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to justify the source of investment in such property - HELD THAT:- As merely in the absence of sales bills, expenditure details etc., the income in the hands of the family members of the assessee cannot be rejected. Likewise, the certificates issued by the gram panchayat have been rejected by the learned CIT (A) merely by assuming them as afterthought - these are the documents which have been issued by the government departments/ authorities such department of land revenue local authority i.e. gram panchayat which cannot be rejected without carrying out the necessary verification and bringing contrary materials on record. The revenue has been given a lot of powers under the statute to discharge their responsibilities in effective manner so that the correct income should be brought to tax. Besides this, there are various supporting staff available with the income tax authorities such as inspector of income tax, tax recovery officer etc. But, the lower authorities despite having so many powers have rejected details furnished by the assessee on their face value - AO and learned CIT (A) was under the obligation of carrying out the necessary verification before rejecting the document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of appellant. 2. The Id.CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 57,00,000/- u/s.69 for purchase of Agricultural land without properly appreciating and considering the facts of the appellant. 3. He has erred in law and on facts in not considering the additional evidence furnished by the assessee explaining the source of investment and considering the same in violation of Rule 46A inasmuch as that the same was forwarded to the A.O. who submitted the Remand Report. 4. He has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition u/s.69 in respect of purchase of agricultural land without appreciating the facts that the source of purchase was family funds duly supported by relevant proof. 5. On account of change in address, there was delay in receiving order of CIT(A) resulting into un-intended delay of 12 days which is prayed to be condoned. 6. On the facts, no such addition ought to have been made. 7. The assessee craves leave to add, to alter and/or to modify any grounds of appeal. 3. The assessee in ground No. 1 has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of ₹ 1,14,12,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 9. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). 10. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) contended that he has made investments only in one property for ₹ 50 Lacs only and jantari value of the same was of Rs. 57,06,000/- only. This fact was also admitted by the AO in his remand report dated 24 April 2017. 10.1 Regarding the source of investments in one property, the assessee submitted that the investment in the property was financed by the family members from their saving who were earning the agriculture income since the last many years. The assessee in support of his contention has filed the extract of form 7/12, 8 ledgers and 6 hakka pattal as well as the certificate from the gram panchayat about the annual agricultural income in the hands of the relatives. 10.2 However the AO in his remand report dated 24th April 2017 contended that the certificate about the source of income in the hands of the family members of the assessee was issued by the gram panchayat dated 7th February 2017 after finalization the assessment proceedings and filing of the appeal. Thus such certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument to prove their identity credit worthiness. Moreover, it is not believable that all family members saved their entire agriculture income for so many years in cash. In view of these contradictions, the Addl. Evidences were not accepted as the, same are not filed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 46A. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Sharma Vs CIT [1979] 119 ITR 867 (All.} has held that the production of additional evidence either before the first appellate authority or the Tribunal was not as a matter of right and in case a discretion was exercised in accordance with law there was no occasion to interfere. Similar view has been taken by Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rao Raja Hanut Singh [2001] 252 ITR 528 (Raj.). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also affirmed these decisions in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. Vs CIT [2008] 302 ITR 173 (Guj.)- After considering the report of the AO and the submissions of the AR, the additional evidence is not accepted as the same is in violation of Rule 46A. Moreover, the appellant has filed such incomplete Addl. Evidences which cannot be fully relied in absence of documentary evidences viz. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who were holding agricultural land and earning income from agricultural activity. For this purpose, the assessee has furnished the details 7/12 extract/form 8A ledger/form 6 hakkapatra showing agricultural land held them. The assessee has also furnished a certificate from gram panchayat certifying annual agricultural income earned by them. The details of the same stand as under: Name F.Y. 2006-07 F.Y. 2007-08 F.Y. 2008- 09 F.Y. 2009- F.Y. 2010-11 l.ilaha Sajubahs Jadeja 350000 350000 350000 350000 350000 Parakramsingh Sajubha jadeja 250000 250000 250000 250000 250000 Devendrasing Sajubha Jadeja 250000 250000 250000 250000 250000 Ramdevsingh .Sajiibha Jadeja 250000 250000 250000 250000 250000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich have been issued by the government departments/ authorities such department of land revenue local authority i.e. gram panchayat which cannot be rejected without carrying out the necessary verification and bringing contrary materials on record. 14.5 The revenue has been given a lot of powers under the statute to discharge their responsibilities in effective manner so that the correct income should be brought to tax. Besides this, there are various supporting staff available with the income tax authorities such as inspector of income tax, tax recovery officer etc. But, the lower authorities despite having so many powers have rejected details furnished by the assessee on their face value. In our considered view, the AO and learned CIT (A) was under the obligation of carrying out the necessary verification before rejecting the documents furnished by the assessee based on cogent reasons. 14.6 Admittedly, the additional documents furnished by the assessee under rule 46A can be accepted by the learned CIT (A) only in the situations provided therein. In other words under the specific circumstances the learned CIT (A) was empowered to accept the additional evidences. However in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
