TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 1083
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the explanation rendered by the assessee is after thought, is again incorrect and deserves to be quashed. 2. That the Worthy Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,20,000/- as per para-5 of his order on account of following facts: a. The CIT(A) has failed to consider that the credit of Rs. 7,20,000/- related to agricultural income belonging to Jagdev Singh Grewal HUF, in which the appellant is co-parceners and since, he had sold the agricultural seeds to M/s Garg Seeds Corporation on behalf of Jagdev Singh Grewal HUF, he has acted only on behalf of HUF and, therefore, any amount received in his name from M/s Garg Seeds Corporation is the income of the HUF only and not his income. b. That the CIT(A) has ignored the duly attested affidavit filed during the course of assessment proceedings and, therefore, the deposits in the bank account stood duly explained and the CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed the addition which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The CIT(A) has erred in holding that since the assessee did not have agricultural income, the credit of Rs. 7,20,000/- is the income from hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee had not declared any agricultural income in the return of income. It was, further, observed by the AO that the assessee had claimed receipt of Rs. 14.70 lacs from his father, and the relevant entry does not appear in the balance-sheet of the assessee. Further, the entries shown in the bank account of Shri Jagdev Singh appears on 26.03.2007. As per the sale deed, the seller had received the full amount of consideration before the date of transfer/date of registration i.e. 26.3.2007. The assessee claimed to have received a sum of Rs. 4,77,000/- from M/s Garg Seeds Corporation, a proprietary concern of Shri Rajender Kumar, on behalf of his father Shri Jagdev Singh, out of agricultural income of his father. However, the assessee failed to produce the concerned person. Entries of this amount was also not appearing in the balance-sheet of M/s Royal Resorts. In view of this, the AO made the addition of Rs. 14,77,000/- treating the investment in the purchase of land, as unexplained investment. Ld. CIT(A), on appreciation of the submission filed before him, upheld the addition, as is evident from para 4 of his order : "4 I have gone through the assessment order pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... co-parcener and since, he had sold the agricultural seeds to M/s Garg Seeds Corporation, on behalf of the Shri Jagdev Singh Grewal, HUF, he acted only on behalf of the HUF and therefore, any amount received in his name from M/s Garg Sales Corporation, is the income of the HUF and not his income. 8. We have carefully perused the rival submissions, facts of the case, including Paper Book and brief synopsis in the matter. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had not shown any agricultural income in his return of income. However, a credit balance of Rs. 33,97,623/- of agricultural income of Shri Sharanjit Singh, in the balance-sheet of M/s Royal Resorts, as on 31.3.2007 is appearing. Assessee was asked by AO, to explain, despite having agricultural land, why he has not shown his agricultural income in the return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee filed written submission, as under : "The assessee already fluted vide letter Dt.26/10/2009 that Sh. Jagdev Singh Grewal HUF who is the Karta of the family sold the agriculture productions to M/s Garg Seeds through Sh. Shuranjit Singh (assessee) against Bill No. 1 Dt. 26/12/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agriculture income in his return of income. But the assessee had a credit balance of Rs. 33,97,623/- of agriculture income in the balance sheet of his proprietary firm M/s Royal Resorts. The assessee claimed that the said income represented agriculture income of his father's HUF, Sh. Jagdev Singh Grewal HUF, who has sold the agriculture produce through the assessee and payments have been received in assessee's bank accounts. It has not been clarified by the assessee as to why agriculture income of HUF was not received in the saving account of the HUF. The saving account in which the said receipts have been received belonged to assessee and even account was operated by the assessee. Since the assessee didn't have any source of agriculture income, hence these credit entries of Rs. 7,20,0000.00 would have to be considered as assessee's income from his resort business. Hence this ground of appeal of assessee is also rejected and addition of Rs. 7,20,000 is confirmed." 10. Having regard to the factual matrix of the case and uncorroborated explanation filed by the assessee, which cannot be accepted as plausible explanation, in view of the findings of the AO and CIT(A),....