TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 1154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceeding is the assessment year 2004-05. The assessee filed returns declaring a loss of Rs. 8,81,944/- as an agricultural income of Rs. 8,44,000/-. A survey was conducted under Section 133(A) of the Act on 14.11.2003. Thereafter, notices under Section 143(2) 142(1) were issued to the assessee and the return was taken for assessment. The assessee had declared net agricultural income of Rs. 8,44,000/-. When she was asked to furnish the particulars, the assessee stated that the agricultural income was earned in two ways. One as an owner cultivating the land getting the agricultural income and another portion was the agricultural income derived as a lessee of the land. The Assessing Officer did not Accept the case that portion of the income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perly explained and the addition was upheld Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the entire material on record, in so far as the agricultural income is concerned, directed the addition of only Rs. 4,50,796/- as directed by the Assessing Officer, rejecting the enhancement made by the Appellate Authority. In so far as the unexplained investment in property is concerned it enhanced the supervision charges from 6% to 10% and directed Assessing Officer to give the benefit of the same. However, in so far valuing the property on the basis of CPWD rates, the Department was justified in acting on the said rates and therefore, the assessee's clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lained the source of the said deposits. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the revenue supported the impugned award. 7. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the submissions. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: (1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the agricultural income form the lease property is not established? (2) Whether the authorities were justified in valuing the residential house constructed by the assessee on the basis of CPWD rates were not available? (3) Whether the finding of the authorities that the source of case deposited in the loan accounts is not properly explained? 8. Question 1: The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact, when there is a concurrent finding by three fact finding authorities based on legal evidence, not case not case for interference is made out. In that view of the matter. He substantial question of law is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. 9. Question 2: The material on record discloses that the assessee has declared an investment of Rs. 1,45,32,000/- as on 31.3.2004 including the value of land. She has not maintained any books of account showing the cost of construction. Under those circumstances, a reference was made to the District Valuation Officer who gave the valuation at Rs. 1,64,20,839/-. The residential construction was constructed in Sainagar, Gangavathi Road, Siddanur, a rural area. The reason for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied in relying on the District Valuation Officer's report which was based on CPWD rates at Rs. 1,64,20,839/- and in adding Rs. 23,20,599/- as unexplained investment under Section 69, therefore, the said portion of the order is set aside and we delete the said addition. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. 11. Question 3: In so far as the case deposit in two loan accounts as set out above is concerned, the material on record disclose that the assessee had Rs. 7,00,000/- in cash on 20.8.2003 having withdrawn the same form his bank account. The said Rs. 7,00,000/- has suffered tax, No doubt, the deposit in the two loan accounts was made on 29.9.2003 and on 25.11.2003. The authorities h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 15,000/- unutilized for a period of tow years. The ITO should have given an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his assertion as to the source of this capital outlay." 12. In this case, it is not in dispute that the asessee withdrew sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 18.8.2003 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.8.2003 from her savings account. She is an agriculturist and she had agricultural Income. Once she demonstrated that she was in possession of Rs. 7,00,000/- cash plus agricultural income on her hands, if after 40 days, a cash deposit is made to the extent of about Rs. 5,20,000/- towards loan account, it cannot be said that the source of the said deposit is not properly explained. Merely because there is a delay of 40 days from the date of wi....