TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05-06 on 29.10.2005 declaring total income of Rs. 1,90,030/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) vide order dated 24.12.2007 and the total income was determined at Rs. 1,26,74,030/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide order dated 29.10.2009 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,22,22,280/- made u/s. 68 of the Act of account of unexplained cash credits. 2. On the facts and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the Assessee and the remand report deleted the addition by holding as under:- 6.4 I have considered the submissions of the Id. A.R. and the facts of the case. I find that in all the cases the assessee had furnished the extracts from the revenue record in form No. 8A and Form 7/12, duly certified by the Talati showing that all of them including Shri N. T. Patel and Shri Mukesh B. Patel had sufficient land holdings for generating agricultural income. In the case of Shri N.T. Patel, the land holding was more than 9 hectares and in the case of Shri Mukesh B. Patel, the holding was 5.21 hectares. Relevant copie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n violation of Rule 46A. The learned D.R. further submitted that there was discrepancy in the land holding that was cited by the Assessing Officer in his order and that considered by CIT(A). The discrepancy was as under:- Name Land Holding (hectares)Before A.O. Before CIT(A) Difference Rs. Amrutben J Patel 4-85-73 3-80-56 9-09 0-21-09 Yes 5,07,300 Anil L Patel 2-07 0-02-07 Yes 5,22,100 Hansaben C Patel 6-03 0-06-03 Yes 7,81,000 Gomtiben B Patel 6-14 0-06-14 Yes 7,33,500 J V Patel 3-31-55 3-31-55 10,35,000 Kirit L Patel 1-91-45 0-4-29 Yes 5,21,500 N T Patel 0 9-62-03 Yes 18,29,800 Mukesh B Patel 0 5-21-47 Yes 7,74,180 Shardaben B Patel 3-75-77 0-9-11 Yes 5,14,800 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat considered by CIT(A). We find that the ld. D.R. has pointed discrepancies in land holding in majority of the cases. Further there is no documentary evidence before us to demonstrate that the parties had sold the agriculture produce through Vigneshwari Krupa Trading. 10. In the case of CIT Vs. Nipun Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 407 (Del) the Hon. High Court after referring to the decision in the case of S. Hastimal vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273(Mad) in Para 9 has noted as under:- " ..... They cannot, therefore, be understood as placing an embargo on the power of the Assessing Officer to ask the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the creditor/shareholder for the purpose of section 68. In an appropriate case, if th....