TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the CIT(A) has likewise erred in making an addition of Rs. 23,77,816/- (wrongly stated in ground as Rs. 13,90,737/-) being profit on sale of agricultural land. 3. That the CIT(A) has likewise further erred in confirming following adhoc disallowances made by Assessing Officer. (a) Out of Car Expenses Rs. 25,000/- (b) Out of maintenance cost of Officer Equipment Rs. 50,000/- (c) Expenses on Staff Training Rs. 88,400/- (d) Loss on Sale of Asset Rs. 34,679/- 2. At the time of hearing before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the assessee has not pressed ground no 1 raised in this appeal of the assessee. The same is accordingly d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee for exemption under section 54 and brought to tax the profit of Rs. 23,77,816/- arising from the sale of land in the hands of the assessee as long term capital gain. 4. The disallowance made by the A.O. on account of his claim for exemption under section 54 was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed by the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), it was submitted by the assessee that the land sold by him being an agricultural land was not a capital asset and therefore, the profit arising from sale thereof was not chargeable to tax as long term capital gain. Documentary evidence in the form of relevant land record was also produced by the assessee to show that the land sold by him was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as actually utilised by the assessee for carrying out any agricultural activity during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer. He has also not been able to produce any evidence to rebut or controvert the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order that the land sold by the assessee was not fit to use for agricultural purpose. It is thus clear that the user condition to establish that the land sold by the assessee was an agricultural land is not satisfied in the present case and this being so, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the A.O. on account of long term capital gain arising to the assessee from the sale of the said land. I, therefore, up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e office equipment of the assessee was old is sufficient to justify the incurring of high maintenance cost. At the same time, admittedly there was a failure of the assessee to produce the supporting bills and vouchers for verification of the A.O. Keeping in view all these facts of the case, I am of the view that it would be fair and reasonable to restrict the disallowance made by the A.O. out of maintenance cost of office equipment to Rs. 25,000/-. Similar is the case of the disallowance of Rs. 88,400/- made by the A.O. on account of expenses on staff training which was done on the basis that the total expenditure incurred by the assessee on salary was only Rs. 2,08,142/-. Although the Assessing Officer accepted the fact that training was r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and as submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, the same was not raised by way of original ground due to inadvertent mistake, the additional ground is admitted by me. On merit of the issue raised in the additional ground, it is observed that the fresh capital of Rs. 3,77,301/- introduced by the assessee during the year under consideration was added by the A.O. to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 as the assessee failed to explain the source of such capital introduction. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition made by the A.O. after having found that the source of capital introduction explained by the assessee as gift from Shri Ashim Kuma....