TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner in six firms which are carrying on business in money lending and derives share income therefrom in the form of salary and interest. He also derives income from house property situated at Karur. The appellant owned 12.68 hectares of agriculture land and apart from that 7.48 hectares of land was taken on lease. He cultivated this land for getting agriculture income. In the return of income (ROI) filed for assessment year 2004-05 on 28.3.2005, he declared total income of Rs. 1,09,120/- and also showed agriculture income of Rs. 16,37,720/-. In the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"), the A.O. has made various additions which were confirmed by ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. Now, the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the assessing officer even before going into such account referred to the DVO to estimate the cost of construction. b. The CIT(A) failed to notice that appellant filed a detailed objection against the estimation of cost by DVO at Rs. 64,74,500 as against the actual cost of Rs. 48,39,599 and totally erred in observing that 'appellant has not furnished any details of objections on the specific points made by the valuation cell'. c. The CIT(A) failed to consider the Authorities laying down the law - that (i) the assessing officer cannot refer the matter to the DVO to estimate the cost without rejecting the books of account maintained in that behalf (242 ITR 478); (ii) the assessing officer cannot substitute the opinion of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 16,37,720/- shown in the ROI. The difference of Rs. 3,91,940/- has been added as income of the year from other sources. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has also confirmed this addition. 5.2 It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the assessee has proved the agricultural land cultivated during the year and the A.O. has not disputed this fact. Further argument was that the so-called expert guidance taken by the A.O. to estimate income vis-à-vis the proof in the form of invoices and bank pass-book evidence receipt of agriculture income to the tune of Rs. 16,37,720/- is not a correct procedure. 5.3 On the other hand, the learned D.R. has supported the concurrent findings of the authorities below. 5.4 We are afraid, as the opinion ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use construction. 6.1 During the relevant year, the assessee has got a house constructed for which investment of Rs. 48,39,599/- has been shown. Without finding any defect in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee for house construction and without rejecting the same, the A.O. has referred the matter for valuation to the Valuation Cell, who, in turn, has estimated the value of the investment in the house at Rs. 64,74,500/- which has resulted into an addition of Rs. 11,28,150/-, pertaining to the assessment year under consideration. The remaining amount has been assessed in the other assessment year. It was argued by the learned A.R. that without rejecting the books of accounts, the A.O. is not empowered to refer the matter f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout giving independent finding and has simply accepted what has been decided by the A.O. 7.2 Before us it was argued that the assessee has received a gift of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Shri Wangiliappa Gounder, Aravakurichi. A confirmation letter from the donor was also filed. His source of income was stated to be rental income and interest income. He also admitted a cash gift of Rs. 1,50,000/- having been given to the assessee after withdrawing from bank account. In our opinion, this gift stands confirmed. It is not judicial to ask the assessee to prove the 'source of the source', which is not permissible under law. Likewise, a gift of Rs. 1 lakh was given by Shri Vivekanandan, Coimbatore, who is a retired person from NTC and had source ....