AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the second round vide order dated 19/5/2010 set aside the matter to the ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter on merits and the present matter before us arises from the said order of the ld. CIT(A) so far as Revenue's appeal is concerned. 3. The assessee has preferred a cross-appeal against the same order of the ld. CIT(A). These appeals were heard together and since the issues involved and the facts are similar, these are being disposed together in this consolidated order. 4. First we take up the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.109/Alld/2015. Grounds No.1, 2 and 3 relates to the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions of Rs. 24,70,000/-; Rs. 45,00,000/-; Rs. 99,22,950/- and Rs. 1,63,16,892/- being investment in FDRs on the premise that investments in the same have been made out of agricultural income. The grievance of the Revenue pertains to the fact that no detail of agricultural land was produced by the assessee. 5. The AO in his Remand Report dated 30.09.2014 has also mentioned that the assessee has failed to establish the details of the land holdings. It is the case of the assessee that as regards the details of agricultural holdings and its proof, the same we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,00,000/- 6034 10.08.02 70,000 10(vi) 2909 10.08.02 70,000/- 24,70,000/- 27,70,000/- Hence from the above it is seen that the amount invested in FDR is of Rs. 27,70,000/- whereas withdrawals is of Rs. 24,70,000/- therefore the difference of Rs. 3,00,000/- is to be added as unexplained. Now regarding the source of deposits in the Bank Account which in this case is Rs. 24,70,000/- it is a fact that the above deposits in the Bank A/c have been made from the Agricultural Income and other income like Teh Bazari, House Rent etc. This fact has been stated by the appellant in page 6 of this order that Returns were also filed in the HUF and Individual status for A.Y. 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 on 21-03-2003 and along with the return for Assessment Year 2001-02 the following details were also filed-: A.Y. 1989-90 to 1996-97 1 - Statement of Income 2 - Capital Account A.Y. 1997 to 2002-03 1- Statement of Income 2- Capital Account 3- Statement of Affairs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case. The assessee has shown agriculture income of Rs. 12,60,000/-. The assessee claims to be owner of 1432 bighas land including 599 bighas in benami names. The agriculture holdings of the asesseee are therefore very substantial. Even if minimum income of Rs. 5,000/- is taken per blgha even then the income disclosed by the assessee form 1432 bigha is reasonable at Rs. 1260000/- in view of the holdings of the assessee and also in view of the fact similar income has been accepted in the previous year, the A.O. is directed to treat the income of Rs. 12,60,000/- as agriculture income.... The Assessing Officer Shri Rajesh Yadav, DCIT, Sultanpur, order dated 27-02-2014 for A.Y. 2010-1 (HUF) in the appellant case has also accepted that: ....the assessee enjoys income mainly from agriculture. Besides agricultural income the assessee also enjoys income from Teh bazari and rent income. The assessee produced the documentary evidences in support to its claim. The documents were examined. No adverse inference is drawn and the income return is accepted.... ...Assessed accordingly on a total income of Rs. 13,04,570/- and agricultural income of Rs. 24,50,000/- is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 5,00,000 1 1-5-2000 27 5,00,000 2 1-5-2000 28 5,00,000 3 1-5-2000 29 5,00,000 4 1-5-2000 30 5,00,000 3 1-5-2000 31 5,00,000 6 1-5-2000 32 5,00,000 7 1-5-2000 33 5,00,000 8 1-5-2000 34 5,00,000 9 Vide CIT(A) order para 20 the said FDRs were after maturity have become as under: 1. FD 104 01.08.200 5,93,000 15.03.20 6,67,303 2 FD 105 01.08.200 5,93,000 15.03.20 6,67,303 3 FD 106 01.08.200 5,93,000 15.03.20 6,67,303 4. FD 107 01.08.200 5,93,000 15.03.20 6,67,303 5 FD 108 01.08.200 5,93,000 15.03.20 6,67,303 6. FD 109 01.08.200 5,93,000 15.03.20 6,67,303 7. FD 110 01.08.200 5,93,000 15.03.20 6,67,303 8. FD 111 01.08.200 5,93,000 15.03.20 6,67,303 9. FD 112 01.08.200 5,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rification that there exist no warrant in the name of Bank of Baroda A/c No. 5941..... It is important to see section 132 of the I.T. ACT Search and Seizure Section 132 has stated that......(l) where the [Director General or Director] or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] [or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner] [or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner] inconsequence of information in his possession ,has reason to believe that... (a).... (b).... (c)..... Then (A).... Or (B) such (Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or] [Joint Director] or [Joint Commissioner], as the case may be , may authorise any [Assistant Director [or Deputy Director], [Assistant Commissioner [or Deputy Commissioner] or Income Tax Officer... This has been inserted by Finance (No-2) Act 2009 with retrospective effect from 1-06-1994 Hence in view of the above retrospective amendment in I.T. Act the warrant issued by the Addl.DIT is a valid warrant and the search is valid search . The interest in Bank of Baroda, Kunda in SB A/c No. 5941 is of Rs. 7,25,029/- is hereby added and confirmed. This issue is dismis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he premise and crux of the argument of the Revenue is that evidence and details of agricultural land were not produced by the assessee. The ld. D.R. vehemently supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and stated that in the absence of proof that income is from agricultural land, the investments so made are attracted to tax. 10. The ld. A.R. of the assessee, on the other hand, refuted the contentions of the ld. D.R. and reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer and submitted before us that all the details of agricultural holdings along with its proof have been placed before the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) and evidence is also placed before us in the paper book for our perusal. 11. We have perused the case records, heard the rival contentions and we find that in the written submissions of the assessee placed before the ld. CIT(A), the entire details of agricultural land holdings have been placed. It is stated that "above extent of agricultural land can be seen from the list enclosed herewith for your kind considerations which were subject matter of writ petition No.2244/1985 (ceiling) in order to prove the agri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2002- 03 (Ind.) assessing agriculture income at Rs. 5,47,340/-. There is also assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) for A.Y. 2003-04 (Ind.) assessing agriculture income at Rs. 5,10,400/-. 14. Therefore, all these evidences were filed before the Department and in the form of paper book has also been placed before us and on perusal of the same it is absolutely clear that income derived are in the nature of agricultural income. The ld. CIT(A) on all the issues discussed hereinabove have analysed the fact that Department had some point or the other either prior to the block assessment period or even after in the succeeding assessment year have taken a view that assessee is having agricultural income and, therefore, findings of the ld. CIT(A) is correct that all deposits in the bank account are from agricultural income. We would also like to reflect at this moment on the remand report of the Assessing Officer wherein he has denied the fact that assessee has produced all the documents as proof of agricultural income whereas in the contrary, the records itself speak that all the evidences regarding agricultural income were produce before the Department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been deposited. 18. The ld. D.R. did not have any objection. Once this is the fact, we do not find anything to adjudicate this ground. Therefore, this ground is also dismissed. 19. Ground No.8 of the appeal is general in nature which needs no adjudication. 20. Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 21. No we take up assessee's appeal in ITA No.116/LKW/2015. The assessee has preferred the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That the learned CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the following additions:- a) Income from Tehbazari and Rent of HUF Rs. 7,03,846/- b) Unexplained Deposit page 83 of order Rs. 30,11,892/- c) Unexplained Deposit page 97 of order Rs. 3,00,000/- d) Unexplained Deposit page 83 of order Rs. 50,000/- 2. That the order passed by the CIT(A) is erroneous and bad in Law and on facts and deserves to be quashed.. 3. The appellant reserves its rights to add, modify or delete any other legal or factual ground/grounds as may be necessary in the interest of justice before or during the pendency or hearing of the present appeal. 22. With regard to the addition which was upheld by....