2017 (3) TMI 687

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ex-parte u/s.144 of the I.T. Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs withdrawn from the partnership firm does not form part of the investment in the land. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment of Rs. 6,55,000/- as the income from other sources when the said amount represents income from agriculture. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in charging interest u/s.234A and u/s. 234B of the I.T. Act. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing." 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are stated in brief. The assessee, in her individual capacity, declared taxable income of Rs. 1,81,757 + agricultural income of Rs. 6,55,000. Since the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ral Income and as such, the income admitted in the form of Agricultural Income is treated as "Income from Other Sources". Copy of the Balance Sheet filed by the assessee as on 31.3.2009 is annexed to this order as ANNEXURE' A' in support that the assessee has not admitted the investment for purchase of housing plots at Tirupati." 3. Aggrieved, it was contended before the CIT(A) that the A.O. erred in making the best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act and further contended that no case was made out for making the impugned additions under section 69/68 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not complied with the notices issued from time to time though number of opportunities were given and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....14.09 acres of land in Cuddaah District. However, no evidence was furnished in support of the claim and it is not known as to why the information or evidence if any, was not filed before the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that even if the assessee's claim of ownership of land were to be accepted, it does not establish the quantum of agricultural income. Just holding of land is not enough to claim that the assessee has actually earned the agricultural income. Reliance was placed upon the decision of ITAT in the case of Paras Collins Distilleries wherein the Bench observed that the primary onus is upon the assessee to place before the A.O. proper material to prove that agricultural income was earned and it cannot be based on mere income....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egistrar's Office. However, the A.O. has called upon the assessee to prove the source of investment of Rs. 20 lakhs only, which was claimed to have been paid, plus registration charges of Rs. 3,43,025. Thus the total expenditure under consideration was Rs. 23,43,025. The investment was claimed to be from withdrawals and agricultural income. As per the information furnished before the A.O. an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs was drawn from the partnership firm, besides agricultural income of Rs. 6,55,000. The Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons while coming to the conclusion that this amount of Rs. 15 lakhs withdrawn from the partnership firm cannot be linked to the investments made in purchase of house sites and accordingly rejected the contention ....