2022 (8) TMI 1604

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ear 2010-11. 2. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee did not file any return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on the ground that except agricultural income, he had no other income chargeable to tax under the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act on the basis of information received that during the year under consideration the assessee jointly with his wife and son had purchased agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 1,32,07,200/-, wherein, assessee's investment was to the tune of Rs. 70,75,286/-. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uantum appeal of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has sustained addition to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of total loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- received from Sh. Rajbir. Thus, he submitted, once the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is treated as assessee's income, it cannot again be treated as loan taken in cash for imposing penalty under section 271D of the Act. Proceeding further, he submitted, as per second proviso to section 269SS of the Act, if the lender and borrower, both, are having agricultural income and neither of them has any income chargeable to tax under the Act, the provision of section 269SS of the Act would not be applicable. He submitted, neither the assessee nor the lenders other than agricultural income h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(Vishakhapatnam) 10. ITO vs. Shakti Foundation., (2016) 48 CCH 0065 (Jaipur) 11. Sunflower Builders (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT., (1997) 61 ITD 0227 (Pune) 12. Asstt. CIT vs. Ruchika Chemicals & Investment (P) Ltd., (2004) 88 TTJ 0085 (Del) 13. Asstt. CIT vs. Gujarat Ambuja Proteins Ltd., (2004) 89 TTJ 0324 (Ahd) 14. CIT vs. Saurabh Enterprises., (2014) 269 CTR 0451 (All) 15. CIT vs. Worldwide Township Projects Ltd., (2014) 367 ITR 0433 (Del) 16. CIT vs. National Clothing Co., (2014) 91 CCH 0019 (Del) 17. CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills., (2015) 379 ITR 0521 (SC) 18. Harpal Singh vs. AO., (2008) 12 DTR 0529 (Jodh) 19. CIT vs. Hissaria Bros., (2007) 211 CTR 0156, (2....