TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 813
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the addition of Rs. 2,16,60,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in property, violating the Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules as the additional evidence were filed by the assessee before the Appellate Authority which were never submitted before the AO during the assessment proceedings. 4. In directing the AO to treat the income of Rs. 1,00,000/- as agriculture income, violating the Rule 46A of the I.T. as the additional evidence were filed by the assessee before the Appellate Authority which were never submitted before the AO during assessment proceedings. 5. In accepting the sweeping submissions of the assessee which does not stand supported by evidence on record of the AO and in accepting self serving documents not corroborated or examined during assessment proceedings the thus denying opportunity of holistic examination to the AO, during the assessment proceedings. 6. Set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the AO to reexamine fresh evidence in a holistic manner." 3. Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A). Assessee also submitted additional evidences which the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted. The CIT(A) conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Ld. AO did not comment on the merits of the additional evidence at all. 7. In light of the above discussion, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has correctly accepted the additional evidences. It cannot be said that Ld. AO was denied any opportunity to go through the additional evidences. Ld. AO has asked three months time, for submission of the Remand Report, Ld. CIT(A) has duly given the time. Thereafter, the ld. AO did not analyze the additional evidences properly. Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A) evaluated the additional evidences and gave a very cogent and speaking order on all issues concerned. In these circumstances, we find that the allegation by the Revenue that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition in violation of Rule 46A is devoid of cogency. Under the circumstances, we hold that Ld. AO has been given proper opportunity by the Ld. CIT(A) to examine the additional evidence. Hence, Ld. CIT(A)'s order on this account cannot be said to be suffering from any shortcoming. The case law relied upon by the Ld. Departmental Representative are not applicable on the facts of the case as the Ld. AO in this case has been given adequate opportunity to examine the additional evidences. 8. Apropos del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant as well as Sh. Mahender Pal Paliwal (appellant's husband) have been placed on record. Cash flow statement of the appellant has been given at page no. 62/PB evidencing cash payment of Rs. 8,45,000/- for stamp duty and incidental expenses for purchase of land at Bhopal. Not only this, the appellant had also submitted an affidavit from Smt. Swati Paliwal, co purchaser of the land, who has averred that she has invested Rs. 1 crore in purchase of land along with Smt. Pushpalata Paliwal and that she had financed this transaction out of loans taken from her father-in-law Sh. Ramesh Chand and her brother in law Sh. Lokesh Kumar, both of whom had received compensation from the Government for compulsory acquisition of land. She submitted copy of bank account as well as bank certificate as evidence of the transaction. The appellant submitted that the contention of the AO that the PAN of Smt. Swati Paliwal, given by her was not correct, doe snot hold any merit since, Smt. Swati Paliwal is also assessed to tax with the same AO and the mistake in PAN was just a typographical error." 9. Considering the above submissions, Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has submitted overwhelm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....she has paid her share of Rs. 1 crore for purchase of land through her bank account. Furthermore, it has been duly explained that other expenses on account of stamp duty and Registrar fees was shared 50:50 by her along with co purchaser Smt. Swati Paliwal. As regards the source, the assessee has duly explained that she had taken a loan of Rs. 1 crore from her husband Sh. Mahender Pal Paliwal by transfer from his account. The original source of money in the hands of the family of the assessee as well as Smt. Swati Paliwal was amount received as compensation on account of acquisition of land by the Government. In these circumstances, we find ourselves, in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that assessee has submitted all the necessary documents to establish the genuineness and veracity of the source of investment. Hence, addition made by the Ld. AO in this regard are not at all sustainable. Hence, we affirm the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) by which addition in this regard has been deleted. 12. Apropos the income of Rs. 1 lac being agricultural income. On this issue assessee has shown a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as agricultural income. This claim of the assessee was denied by the Ld. AO. This income ....