9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Circle, Kochi/Revenue is the respondent. The assessee, being aggrieved by the common order dated 23.04.2018, is in appeal before this Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The details of assessment orders, etc., are stated in the following table : Sl. No. Assessment Year & Date of Assessment Order Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITA No. 1 2004-05; 30.12.2011 ITA C-130-135/Cent/CIT(A)/ IV/ 2011-12 dt.31.03.2016 ITA 422/C/2016 dt.23.04.2018 53/2018 2 2005-06; 30.12.2011 ITA C-130-135/Cent/CIT(A)/ IV/ 2011-12 dt.31.03.2016 ITA 423/C/2016 dt.23.04.2018 76/2018 3 2006-07; 30.12.2011 ITA C-130-135/Cent/CIT(A)/ IV/ 2011-12 dt.31.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority answered the Principal objection of the assessee namely that the 'Shelter' searched by Revenue did not exclusively belong to the assessee's husband by holding that the objection is not clear whether the search under Section 132 of the Act could be carried out only at places where the assessee has an exclusive right. A power of attorney resulting in the purchase of land and the documents seized constitute the description of documents, articles, and things stated in the seizure. Independent of the above, it is noticed by the assessing authority that, admittedly, the assessee herein is a partner in M/s. Nilambur Traders and Director of K A Latex (P) Ltd were covered by the notice issued under Section 132 of the Act. After rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.2,47,043/- Gross Total Income Rs.3,18,445/- Less: Deduction u/s 80L Rs. 12,000/- Total Income Rs.3,06,445/- Rounded off u/s 288A Rs.3,06,450/- 2.3 Thus, by the assessment order dated 30.12.2011, the actual income of the assessee was rounded up to Rs.3,06,450/- . For the other assessment years, the agricultural income claimed, and total income assessed is stated thus : A. Y. Return of Income Agricultural Income Total income assessed 2004-05 Rs.97,043/- Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.3,06,450/- 2005-06 Rs.69,248 Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.2,19,250/- 2006-07 Rs.1,01,802/- Rs.4,95,000/- Rs.8,35,400/- 2007-08 Rs.3,06,699/- Rs.5,10,000/- Rs.13,66,390/- 2008-09 Rs.3,06,634 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee admittedly has a direct connection with the premises searched by the Department. The documents recovered during the search necessitated initiation of action under Section 153A, read with Section 153C of the Act. From the above narrative, though an objection in law is stated, the objection is not successfully carried to its logical end while referring to the documents on which the Revenue is relying. 4. Though the following grounds, "A : WHETHER the authorities below did not commit an error of law when they upheld the assessment proceedings initiated against the Appellants u/s 153C r/w Sec. 153A NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that the search instituted in the case of Sri Rauf did not result in the recovery of "any cash, jewellery or valuable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the assessing authority. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined in detail all these circumstances and rejected the claim of agricultural income held as follows: "This issue has already been dealt with, in the appeal orders of Shri K.A. Rauf, where agricultural income have been disallowed by holding that "the veracity of the claim of such agricultural income has not been established as to what has been the gross receipts and expenses incurred. An income cannot be based on mere presumption that if the assessee owns some agricultural land, the income from agricultural operation arises automatically. In order to establish the income from agriculture the procedures have been laid out for maintaining the details of receipts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are dismissed." 7. The following substantial questions of law are stated for consideration by this Court "C : WHETHER the authorities below did not commit an error of law when they held that the onus was on the Appellant to prove that income 10 returned as agricultural income is "not income from other sources" especially when there is no dispute that the appellant owns agricultural plantations? D : WHETHER, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities were right in "treating" the agricultural income disclosed in the Return of Income as "income from other sources" ? 7.1 This Court, in the appeals filed by the assessee's husband, considered the claim of all the assesses subjected to reopening of assessment upon search ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
