Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2017 (6) TMI 1043

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dition made under section 69A of the I.T. Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual who is engaged in the business of rubber manufacturing. For the assessment year 2009-10, the return of income was filed on 30/11/2009, declaring loss of Rs. 4,70,270/- and net agricultural income of Rs. 3,85,000/-. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had made cash deposits on various dates in the Axis Bank account during the year under consideration, amounting to Rs. 15,81,000/-. The assessee was asked to explain the source of the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 15,81,000/-. It was submitted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, the margin money loan taken proceeding, Bank statement of the IOB for the period 01/01/2007 to 31/12/2015 etc. It was submitted that the assessee is having rubber estate and had disclosed net agricultural income for the relevant assessment year amounting to Rs. 3,85,000/- which has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Even in the earlier assessment years and in the subsequent assessment years, the assessee had disclosed agricultural income and the finding of the CIT(A) that no agricultural income was disclosed by the assessee in the past years and subsequent years is false. To prove this, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has taken me through income and expenditure statement of the rubber estate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on hand 18.10.2008 101000 Agricultural income 06.11.2008 100000 Agricultural income 09.12.2008 100000 Agricultural income 05.01.2009 60000 Deposit out of cash on hand 08.01.2009 230000 Margin money loan 09.02.2009 275000 Deposit out of cash on hand 26.02.2009 50000 Deposit out of cash on hand 26.02.2009 30000 Deposit out of cash on hand 04.03.2009 50000 Deposit out of cash on hand 16.03.2009 35000 Deposit out of cash on hand 25.03.2009 135000 Agricultural income 28.03.2009 10000 Deposit out of cash on hand Total 15,81,000   7.1 Out of the total deposits of Rs. 15,81,000/-, the Assessing Officer had given credit of Rs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....008 56,000 8. 15-Jan-2009 11,000 9. 2-Feb-2009 9,000 10. 3-Mar-2009 63,000 11. 12-Mar-2009 48,000 12. 23-Mar-2009 26,605   Total 4,78,055   For A.N. Rubbers sd/- Authorized Signatory 7.3 The above confirmation letter was rejected by the CIT(A) only for the reason that the assessee was not disclosing any agricultural income in the past as well as in the subsequent assessment years. This conclusion of the CIT(A) is wrong. In the current year, the assessee had disclosed net agricultural income of Rs. 3,85,000/-. Even in the subsequent assessment year, a perusal of the return of income shows that the assessee had declared net agricultural income of Rs. 3,70,000/-.....