AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 1095
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. First, we take up Revenue's appeal bearing ITA No. 2917/Ahd/2013 for the purpose of adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment of Rs. 1,60,37,000/- for purchase of land 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in fixing the onus on A.O that he had not brought any material on record to indicate that undisclosed income earned in the case of M/s. Om Corporation was utilized somewhere else ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isclosure made by the firm does not belong to the assessee. However, the AO has given benefit of the disclosure made of Rs. 13,63,000/against the undisclosed investment of Rs. 1,74,00,000/- only in the year under consideration. As per the AO, effectively, the sum of Rs. 1,60,37,000/- represents the undisclosed investment of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that all the financial transactions of the partnership firm namely Om Corporation are managed by him which is evident from the seized materials being cash book of the firm written by himself. The assessee also submitted that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2010-11 2011-12 Returned income Rs. 8,38,000/- Rs. 1,99,25,800/- Rs. 2.12.54,8207- Rs. 4,20,18,620/- Assessed Income Rs. 8,38,000/-Rs. 1,99,25,8007- Rs. 2,12,54,820/- AO has not brought any material on record which indicates that undisclosed income earned in the case of M/s. Om Corporation was utilised for making any other investment or was spent for any other purpose. In such a situation AO is not justified in rejecting the claim of appellant that amount invested in Gatrad land by appellant is application of the income of the firm.t As mentioned earlier, Shri Jagdish Savalia who is brother of appellant, is a partner in M/s. Om Corporation and the day-to-day affairs of the firm were being looked after by the appellant. This is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee on behalf of the firm along with the other partner of the firm vide letter dated 02/04/2011, placed on pages 7 to 10 of the paper book which was duly signed by the assessee along with the other partner. In the disclosure, the income was disclosed by the firm for different years including the year under consideration for an amount of Rs. 2,03,41,000/- only. As per the Ld. AR, there was no doubt raised by the revenue on the disclosure made by the assessee on behalf of the firm along with the other partner. The disclosure petition of the firm was duly signed by the assessee along with the other partners. Accordingly, the Ld. AR contended that the investment shown by the assessee represent the application of income disclosed by the firm whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... close nexus between the assessee and the firm, the contention raised by the assessee cannot be rejected without any strong reason. As such, the onus shifted upon the revenue to prove that the contention of the assessee is wrong, and the income disclosed by the partnership firm has been used for some other purpose but what we find that no such detail is forthcoming from the other of the authority below. 11.2 In addition to the above, we also note that the assessee along with other partners has made disclosure of the income of the firm in pursuance to the search under section 132 of the Act, vide letter dated 02/04/2011, which is available on pages 1 to 10 of the paper book. Had there been no nexus between the assessee and Om Corporation, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The assessee has also submitted the agriculture bills in support of his claim. However, the AO found that the agriculture bills were not pertaining to the period in dispute and therefore he treated the same as undisclosed income of the assessee. 14. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: Appellant had made only a general claim that sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- represents his agricultural income. However, no evidence in support of this claim has been filed either before AO of the undersigned. Certain bills for sale of agricultural products were filed before AO, but as mentioned by the AO in the assessment order, they pertain to the subsequent period. I therefore, hold that appellant has failed to sa....