TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and allowed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came to be confirmed. 2. Assessee is an individual and search operation was carried out under Section 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act') on 25.03.2008. By treating the said proceedings as one under Section 153A of the Act, assessee was given an opportunity to file revised return of income and pursuant to same, return of income was filed by assessee on 13.04.2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,79,27,720/- and said return of income came to be processed under Section 141 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. After hearing the representative of the assessee, assessment order dated 21.12.2009 came to be passed by the Assessing Officer (for short 'AO') wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., sum of Rs. 2,89,000/- found and seized at the time of search h ad remained unexplained; afforestation charges of Rs. 2,75,75,742/- accepted as revenue expenditure is erroneous and it ought to have been treated as capital expenditure and it ought to have dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. 4. We have heard Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing for revenue. Statement of objections have been filed by respondent which is flawed because of objections raised by the Registry and rightly so. Though respondent is served and represented, none appears. 5. Reiterating the grounds urged before the Tribunal, it is contended by Mr.Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing for the revenue that both the appellate au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cash was available with the assessee for lending since same had been withdrawn from the Bank and as such, it has been concluded that sufficient cash was available with the assessee for lending. In that view of the matter, grounds urged by the revenue came to be rejected by the appellate authority and affirmed by the Tribunal. 7. Insofar as cash of Rs. 2,89,000/- seized during the course of search having been added as unexplained cash by the Assessing Officer also received the attention of both the appellate authorities. It is not in dispute that at the time of search, a sum of Rs. 2,89,000/- cash was in possession of the assessee, out of which Rs. 2,50,000/- was seized. Assessee is owning 4½ acres of agricultural land in HUF capacit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in view of the same, payment of Rs. 2.75 Crores made by the assessee during the month of February, 2007 to the Forest Department was inadmissible. CIT (Appeals) noticed that assessee had paid a sum of Rs. 2,75,75,742/- to the Forest Department towards afforestation charges and it was never the case of revenue that said expenditure is a capital expenditure. As the lease was only for a period of four years, a mount spent towards afforestation charges was rightly held as an expenditure not being enduring in nature and as such, it was treated as revenue expenditure. Though amount was paid by the assessee on 01.02.2007, it was booked as expenditure for the assessment year 2008- 09 since Forest Department has informed that demand draft furni....