TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er authorities and materials available on record. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee invested Rs. 6,00,000/- in the capital of the firm M/s. Sunley Jewellers, in which the assessee is a partner. The assessee explained the source of the capital in the firm to be out of his earlier year's income for which the assessee filed copies of return of income of last three years before the Assessing Officer, wherein, the assessee has shown returned income of Rs. 1,22,290/- and agricultural income of Rs. 30,000/- in assessment year 2007-08, returned income of Rs. 1,35,750/- and agricultural income of Rs. 30,000/- in assessment year 2008-09 and returned income of Rs. 5,79,680/- and agricultural income of Rs. 60,240/- in assessment year 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sideration of Rs. 21,00,000/- which itself can explain the investment made in the firm. 7. The CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee as well as the remand report of the Assessing Officer held that he was inclined to agree with the view of the Assessing Officer that the capital contribution of Rs. 6,00,000/- in the firm cannot be accepted to be out of capital of Rs. 5,46,316/- in absence of corroborative evidence. He held that as argued by the assessee that the assessee has sold house property for Rs. 21 lakhs on 20.4.2008 and that this amount was available with the assessee for investment in the firm carries force. He has also observed that in the remand report, the Assessing Officer has not commented on the contention ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 10. In Ground No.2 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing agricultural income of Rs. 60,240/-. 11. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 60,240/-. The assessee explained that the assessee had agricultural land of Ac.2.00 from which he has produced sugar cane worth Rs. 1,19,400/-. The Assessing Officer made enquiries through Income tax Inspector who reported that the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... burden is on the assessee to prove that the income was agricultural income. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Genkateswamy Naidu, 29 ITR 529 (SC), wherein, it has been held that in order to claim an income which the assessee considers as agricultural income, the assessee has to put before the authorities materials which will enable them to come to a conclusion that the income which was sought to be assessed was agricultural income. It was not for the authorities to prove that it was not agricultural income. He observed that from perusal of assessment records, it is seen that the assessee filed a lease deed ostensively showing that he had taken agricultural land on lease from 1.2.2008 to 31.9.2009 for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut treated the same as income from other sources of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to produce evidence of sugar cane cultivation and sale of sugar cane. Before me also the assessee has failed to produce any evidence in this regard. Therefore, I find no good and justifiable reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities and dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee. 19. In Ground No.3 of the appeal, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in estimating the interest on term deposit in bank. 20. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the Asse....