2013 (1) TMI 777

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ural income of Rs. 11,03,410/- from floriculture when AO has held the same as business income and not an agricultural income and also the similar income is covered under definition of Agriculture under explanation 3 to section 2(1A) introduced by the Finance Act 2008 w.e.f. 01/04/2009."   3. The assessee is in the business of producing and selling Floricultural produce i.e., carnation flowers. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee that Floriculture/horticulture activity is a part of agricultural activity. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 11,03,410/- in respect of the income from Floriculture treating the same as non-agricultura....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,75,000/- on account of introduction of capital by the assessee from unexplained sources and in ignoring the fact that the assessee has changed her explanation from introduction of capital from sales proceeds, (at the time of assessment proceedings) to that of from her personal savings and from her husband's savings (during appellate proceedings)." 7. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 9,75,000/- in respect of the addition to the capital account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has made addition of Rs. 9,75,000/- to the capital account but no specific head or sourc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as well as evidence before us, we are of the opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 9,75,000/- at the source of introduction of said capital as explained by the assessee. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. Ground No.2 is dimissed. 9. Ground No.3 reads as under: "3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in admitting the additional evidence in respect of difference in opening and closing balance of capital account without giving the A.O. an opportunity to submit his say on such additional evidence." 10. We find that Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 14,93,500/- to....