TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eals) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the submission of the appellant regarding the appellant and his family members had sizable agricultural land and as per the evidences produced, the sources for making payment of Insurance premium were fully explained. It be so held now and addition of Rs. 12,50,000/- retained by ldCIT(A) be deleted. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the only source of income of the appellant and his family members was from agriculture income and in view of the decision of the Jurisdictional Tribunal cited before him, no addition u/s.69 could be made for investment out of alleged undisclosed income. It be so held now and addition be deleted. 4. Both the lower authorities erred in making addition u/s.69 which is not justified on the facts and legal position invoking section 69. It be so held now and addition made and retained be deleted. 5. The ld.CIT(A) ought to have allowed the appeal of the appellant in toto. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. The solitary issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity and his only source of income is from agricultural activity till the year under consideration in which he has undertaken Bajaj Allainze agency. The assessee contended that the AO failed to appreciate the submission made before him, but proceed to treat the insurance premium as undisclosed income without bringing any material on record suggesting that he has earned undisclosed income from any other source. 5.1 The assessee further submitted that the provision of section 69 of the Act does not oblige the AO to treat an investment as income even if the same is not explained satisfactory. However the AO in his case treated the payment of insurance premium as income despite the fact that he has explained the sources investment. 5.2 The assessee further submitted that AO completed the assessment by rejecting his explanations without verifying or examining the veracity of the same. As such the AO should have verified the same by taking further inquiry and affording the assessee with opportunity for his rebuttal. Hence, the principles of natural justice were not followed. 6. However the learned CIT (A) after considering the facts provided part relief to the assessee by obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvested in the purchase of insurance policies. The cash borrowings from Mihirbhai Patel are shown at not more than 5 lacs. Therefore, the investments of Rs. 19 lacs could be attributed to the known sources of the appellant and the other two members of the family. The balance amount i.e. Rs. 12,50,000/- has to be considered as the unexplained investments u/s. 1 69 of the IT Actj The addition in question is therefore restricted to Rs. 12,50,000/- as against Rs. 31,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee will get a relief of Rs. 19,00,000/-. The grounds of appeal I are therefore partly 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The learned AR before us submitted that the Revenue in the subsequent assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 has accepted the agricultural income to the tune of Rs.32 lakhs. Accordingly, the income from the agricultural operations for the year under consideration should also be taken at Rs.32 lakhs only. 8.1 It was also contended by the learned AR that once the assessee has explained the source of investment, then the provisions of section 69 of the Act cannot be applied. The learned AR in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the assessee before them (authorities below) suggesting that the assessee was carrying out agricultural operations on the land of the other parties. In the absence of such information, the learned CIT-A, in our considered view has rightly not taken the cognizance of the additional agricultural income of Rs. 12 lakhs. 10.6 This is also pertinent to note that the Revenue in the subsequent 2 assessment years has only treated the income from agricultural operations for Rs. 20 lakhs only based on the certificate issued by the Serpent. The fact of the other 2 assessment years are exactly the same as in the year under consideration. There was a certificate issued by the Gram sarpunch stating the income of the assessee for Rs. 20 lakhs only. 10.7 However, we find that in the subsequent 2 assessment years there was no deduction made by the AO against the income declared by the assessee for the drawings. In other words the entire amount shown by the assessee was treated as income available for investment. It is not out of place to mention that the assessee has family members such as his brother, brother's wife and his wife. Therefore, some deduction has to be made from the income....