TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1625
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") was complete by order dt. 10/03/2015 at Rs. 9,16,07,398/- by making the addition of Rs. 6,48,565/- on account of the amount received by the assessee on the alleged sale of agricultural land Rs. 9.75 Lakhs on account of the money received by the assessee on the alleged sale of agricultural produce Rs. 11.55 Lakhs on account of alleged loans taken by the assessee Rs. 1,36,34,294/- on account of the capital gains arising out of the alleged sale of agricultural lands and taxing the capital gains on account of shares at 20% instead of 10%. 3. Aggrieved by such an action of learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) by way of the impugned order, upheld the addition and dismissed the appeal of assessee. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, challenging all the additions with a delay of 74 days. In this case, the impugned order was passed on 24/02/2020 and as per the appeal memo, the order was communicated to the assessee on 18/03/2020. The limitation to file appeal expires during the pandemic, whereas the appeal was actually filed on 30/07/2020. Defect of delay of 74 days ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he findings of the authorities below. Ground No.2 is accordingly dismissed. 7. Coming to Ground No.3 relating to the addition of Rs. 9.75 Lakhs, learned Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee claimed to have earned agricultural income of Rs. 9.75 Lakhs from the sale of cotton to M/s. PNR & Co. and produced three receipts. When the learned Assessing Officer issued letter under section 133(6) of the Act to the above concerned, there was no reply at all from them. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, made such an addition. 8. Ld. CIT(A) sent the same receipts to the learned Assessing Officer calling upon report. According to the learned Assessing Officer, when he issued commission u/s. 131(1)(d) of the Act to the ITO, Ward-1, Adilabad on 12/03/2018 for making enquiry, statement of one Puskar Narsing Rao, Managing Partner of M/s. PNR & Co. was recorded. According to the said Puskar Narsing Rao, the firm was in existence for only one year during the financial year 2010-11 and subsequently, no transactions were there. When confronted with the receipts, Narsing Rao stated that such receipts resemble the invoice format designed for their firm but such were never issued that too....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 38.5 Lakhs on that score. 13. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed confirmation letters and copy of acknowledgment of ITR of Sri Kalvakuntla Sudheer, Sri Devarakonda Rajendra Rao, Devarakonda Rajendra Rao (HUF), Sri Devarakonda Anil Kumar, Sri Devarakonda Venugopala Rao, Marneni Ramakrishna Rao (HUF) and A.Venkat Rao (HUF). Ld. CIT(A) found all such letters to be stereo typed once and the name of the assessee was not to be found as a debtor in the balance sheets. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee also did not file the balance sheet for the assessment year 2011-12 showing the creditors as opening balance. For the assessment year 2012-13 also the assessee did not show the above persons as creditors in the balance sheet and according to the Ld. CIT(A), if all these transactions are routed through banking channel, there was no difficulty for the assessee to file the information, and there is no reason for the assessee to avoid filing of such information. Ld. CIT(A) did not believe the version of the assessee that these creditors are coming up from the financial year 1997-98 and concluded that the genuineness of the transaction is under a serious cloud. Inasmuch as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that was sold was infact agricultural land. On this basis, learned Assessing Officer brought a sum of Rs. 1,36,34,294/- to tax. 17. Before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee produced the certificate obtained from Talathi, Balapur in support of his claim that the impugned land was agricultural in nature. When the remand report was sought from the learned Assessing Officer, learned Assessing Officer issued commission under section 131 of the Act to the ACIT, Nanded. ACIT, Nanded recorded the sworn statement of Talathi, who stated land under consideration was not under plough in the financial years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. When the attention of the assessee was invited to this statement of the Talathi, the assessee did not respond. Ld. CIT(A) on a perusal of the record including the sworn statement of Shri Amberay, L. Baba Rao, VRO, found that the ownership of Shri K.V.Rajeswara Rao was confirmed but the land was not under cultivation in the financial years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12. Ld. CIT(A) further recorded that the fact of usage of land is evidenced by the 7/12 extract to say that there was no cultivation. On this, Ld. CIT(A) held that the profits on sale of non....