2019 (2) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt year 2005-06. The common ground raised in all the assessment years is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of agricultural income returned by the assessee. In the assessment year 2005-06, the assessee also challenged against confirmation of addition of Rs.. 5,17,713/- as well as addition of Rs..20.00 lakhs. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had been assessed to tax before the search. He had returned agricultural income as his main source of income. Consequent to the search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short], the assessee filed returns in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act. In these returns also the assessee had disclosed agricultural income as major sourc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....come at Rs..43,42,000/- was treated as non-agricultural income and brought to tax. 3. The assessee carried the matters in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee as well as material available on record, the ld. CIT(A) allowed 50% of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and the balance was confirmed for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04. For the assessment year 2005- 06, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for all the assessment years. All the appeals filed by the assessee in the year 2014 were taken up for hearing in 2014/15 and at the request of the ld. Counsel, the hearing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessee, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the disallowance made for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are not based on proper appreciation of facts. He further opined that the determination of yield on the basis of the rainfall was not correct and as everybody is aware that the price of agricultural goods is not just based on yield alone and further the cultivation activity is carried out through wells/bore-wells. Therefore, considering the size of the land holdings taken on lease, and the nature of the crops grown, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee has earned to the extent of 50% of the agricultural income returned. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to allow 50% of the agricultural income returned by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s below and accordingly dismiss the ground raised by the assessee. 8. Addition of Rs..20,00,000/-: From the seized material, the assessee had entered into a sale agreement with Shri Kannan on 16.03.2005 along with Empire Consultants Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property at Khaleel Centre, No. 4, Montieth Road, Egmore for a consideration of Rs..2.2 crores. The advance paid was Rs..40 lakhs. When the assessee was required to explain the details of the transaction and the sources for the payment, he explained that the assessee had neither entered into any transaction/agreement with Empire Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of property nor paid any advances towards any kind of property at Egmore. The seized material was in the custody of th....