Shri SHAMBHU NATH SHARMA, Bhopal V. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

ITSSA 127/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1364 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Income from undisclosed sources; Salary income; Accommodation entries
• Section: 54F; 153A; 68; 132

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NOS. 125 TO 128/IND/2014 A.YS.2000-01, 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005 -06 SHAMBHU NATH SHARMA BHOPAL PAN AAUPG 8862G ::: APPELLANT VS ASSTT.COMMR. OF INCOME TAX 1(2) BHOPAL ::: RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL AND SHRI N.D. PATWA REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 8.12 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 9 . 1 2 .2015 2 O R D E R PER BENCH IT(SS) A NOS. 125 TO 128/IND/2014 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATE FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)- I, BHOPAL, DATED 6.1.2014 AND 627/IND/2013 EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), BILASPUR CAMP AT BHO PAL, DATED 14.8.2013. IT(SS) A NO. 644/IND/2013 FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) , BILASPUR, CAMP AT BHOPAL, DATED 14.8.2013. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND HIS FAMILY CONSISTS OF HIS WIFE, SMT. KRIS HNA SHARMA, THREE SONS SHRI ASVININATH SHARMA, SHRI RAMNATH SHARMA, SHRI SHYAMNATH SHARMA AND THEIR WIVES, SMT. KUSUM SHARMA, SMT. RANJANA SHARMA AND RADHA SHARMA, RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE FAMILIES ARE ENGAGED IN TRADING BUSINESS IN THEI R 3 INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND ALSO THROUGH A PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S RAM ENTERPRISES & COMPANY, M/S HARE KRISHNA COLONISERS PRIVATE LIMITED. A HOTEL IN ALSO BEING RUN UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF HARE KRISHNA HOTELS. A SEARCH W AS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT ON VARIOUS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP ON 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2005. IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT PRIOR TO SEARCH, THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEES WERE NOT FILING THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME AND WERE NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SHOWING PURCHASE AND SALE OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES WERE FOUND IN THE NAMES OF VARI OUS FAMILY MEMBERS. VARIOUS PAPERS RELATING TO ADVANCES RECEIVED AND ADVANCES GIVEN WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AND ON THESE COUNTS, SHRI RAM NATH SHARMA SURRENDERED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS. 1.83 CRORES IN THE NAMES OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, NOTICE U/S 4 153A WAS ISSUED ON 22.3.2006 AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED DECLARING INCOME AS UNDER :- A.Y. INCOME OFFERED 2000 - 01 R S. 2,12,130/ - 2002 - 03 RS. 7,87,713/ - 2004 - 05 RS. 92,290/ - 2005 - 06 RS. 2,65,467/ - 2006 - 07 RS. 2,54,728/ - IT(SS)A NO. 125/IND/ 2014 - (A.Y. 2000-01) 3. IN GROUND NO. 1 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS ABOUT PARTL Y CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TH E LEARNED CIT(A) FOR ADDING THE CASH BALANCE IN THE BEGINN ING OF THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CASH IN HAND AT RS.1,86,895/- AS ON 1.4.1999. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE AMOUNT BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING BANK ACCOUNTS AND THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN HOLDING SUCH CASH. IN THE PARA RELATING TO THIS ADDITION, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MENTIONS THAT THE CASH BALANCE OF RS.36,895/- W AS 5 JUSTIFIED AND TREATED RS.1,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED THE SAME U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED WHO LE AMOUNT OF RS.1,86,895/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- AND GRANTED RELIEF OF RS.36, 895/- WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF TREATED EXPLAINE D. HOWEVER, HE ADDED THE WHOLE OF BALANCE IN THE COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1997-98 TO 1998-99 WHICH PERIOD FALLS PRIOR TO BLOCK PERIOD PLAC ED AT PAGES 18 AND 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BALANCE SHEET WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 6 OF T HE PAPER BOOK. A PERUSAL OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CASH BALANCE OF RS. 1,050.75 AS O N IST APRIL, 1997. THEREAFTER, THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMEN TS WERE SPECIFIED AND SOME OF THE RECEIPTS RELATED TO SALE PRO CEEDS 6 OF LAND AND DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SHOWED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF RS.35,200/- FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98 AND RS.43,492/- FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1998-99 WHICH APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND ALSO LOOKING TO T HE FACT THAT THERE ARE OTHER EARNING MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT FOR THE FINANCIAL Y EAR 1999-00 THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS. 35,000/- HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. FURTHER THE LIABILITIE S SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 1.4.1999 HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. THE CAPITAL BALANCE OF RS. 24,46,895/- AND RENT ADVANCE OF RS. 13,445/- WERE ALSO ACCEPTED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY OTHER ASSET AS ON 1.4.1999, THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE C ASH IN HAND OF RS.1,86,895/- AS UNEXPLAINED. THE LEARNED CIT( A) 7 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. WE, THE REFORE, DELETE THE SAME. 5. IN GROUND NO. 2 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS ADVANCES OF RS.1,08,480/- FROM FOUR PERSONS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-00, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- NAME OF PARTY ADVANCE (RS.) GOPI BAI 13,200 KUSUM 26,040 SHRI BAI 30,240 USHA RANI 39,000 TOTAL 1,08,480 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIF Y THE LOAN AND ADVANCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DETAIL. EVEN THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON S REMAINED UNVERIFIED AND HE HELD THAT THESE LOANS AND ADVANCES ARE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES JUST TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPITAL A CCOUNT 8 OF RAM ENTERPRISES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RECEIPT OF ADVANCES ON BEHALF OF RAM ENTERPRISES. AS P LOT WAS SOLD BY M/S RAM ENTERPRISES AND THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE US THAT THE PLOT WAS SOLD IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 TO THESE PARTIES BY M/S RAM ENTERPRISES AND THE FIRM DEBITED THE ASSESSEES ACCOUN T. PAGE 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWS THAT M/S RAM ENTERPRI SES HAS CREDITED THE SALES ACCOUNT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002 - 03 BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,08,480/- AND DEBITED THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT WITH THE SAME AMOUNT. IT IS AVAILABLE FROM PAGE 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK. M/S RAM ENTERPRISES HAS ALREADY TREATED THIS AS INCOME, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUB LE ADDITION OF THE ADDITION IF SUSTAINED HERE ALSO. THE LE ARNED 9 CIT(A) HAS JUST CONFIRMED IT BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS NOT CONVINCING. SINCE THE AS SESSEE WAS A PARTNER IN THE FIRM AND RECEIVED THE ADVANCE AND KEPT IT WITH HIMSELF AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE FIRM HAS SOL D THE PLOTS AND DEBITED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN SUSTAINING THIS ADDITI ON. 9. GROUND NO. 3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUI RE ANY ADJUDICATION. 10. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. IT(SS) NO. 126/IND/2014 (A.Y. 2002-03) 11. IN GROUND NO. 1 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SUSTAININ G THE ADDITION OF RS.60,000/- TOWARDS THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FR OM SHRI DHAN SINGH FOR THE PLOTS LOCATE AT BINA, M.P. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ADVANCE OF RS. 60,000/- IN CASH AS ON 16.4.2001 TOWARDS PLOTS SOLD SITUATED AT BINA. AS PER T HE 10 SUBMISSIONS, THE TOTAL PRICE FIXED WAS RS. 1,50,000/- AND RS. 60,000/- WAS BAYANA (ADVANCE). AN AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WHEN THE PRICE ROSE OF THE PLOT, THE ASSESSEE DEMANDE D MORE MONEY. IN THIS SITUATION, THE PURCHASERS DEMANDED MONEY BACK WHICH THE ASSESSEE DULY RETURNED ON 15.7.2006. THIS FACT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY SHRI DHANSIN GH IN HIS AFFIDAVIT. THIS AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI DHAN SINGH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. SHRI DHAN SINGH WHO HAS GIVEN THE MONEY, HAS CONFIRMED THE FACT IN HIS AFFIDAVIT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS GIVEN AGAINST PURCHASE OF THE PLOT. THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY PAIN TO FURTHER EXAMINE SHRI DHAN SINGH TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS IF DOU BTED. THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED BACK ON ACCOUNT OF CANCELLATION OF THE DEAL. THEREFORE, IN OUR 11 CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN SUSTAIN ING THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISI ON OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PARI KH & CO.; 30 ITR 181(SC) WHEREIN AFFIDAVIT FILED BUT NOT EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES WITHOUT CROSS EXAMINATION, THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED. IN VIEW OF THIS FAC T, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 13. IN GROUND NO. 2 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS AGRICULTUR AL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF R S. 1,50,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) PARTLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM BUT CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION OF RS. 1,25,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND AT BAIRAGARH CHIKLI AND GANJ BASODA, BHOPAL, THE DETAILS OF AREA OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND KHASRA KHATHONI AND GIRDAVRI WERE NOT SUBMITTED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) RECORDS THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS THE OWNER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ADMEASURING 5 ACRES, 12 COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED WAS SUBMITTED FOR PURCHAS E OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND LOCATED AT BAIRAGARH CHIKLI AND HE WORKED OUT THE INCOME AT RS.5,000/- PER ACRE AND GRANTE D RELIEF OF RS.25,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVE N THE LAND ON BATAI FOR THREE YEARS ON THE RENT OF RS.1,50,000/- FOR THREE YEARS. THUS, THE ANNUAL RENT COMES TO RS.50,000/- WHICH GIVES RS. 10,000/- PER ACRE. TH E AGREEMENT WITH KALURAM WAS PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME THIS YEAR ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUNITA VINOD; 18 ITJ 630 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF RS. 15,000/ - TO RS. 20,000/- PER ACRE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. IN OUR VIEW, THE RENT WAS FOR THREE YEARS FOR 5 ACRES OF LAND WHICH COME S TO RS. 10,000/- PER ACRE WHICH APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE. W E, 13 THEREFORE, ACCEPT THE SAME AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 15. GROUND NO. 3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQU IRE ADJUCIATION. IT(S) A NO. 127/IND/2014 : A.Y. 2004-05 16. IN GROUND NO. 1 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SUSTAININ G THE ADDITION OF RS.80,000/-. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AGRICULT URAL INCOME AT RS. 1,10,000/-. THE ANNUAL RENT WAS RS. 55,000/- WHICH GIVES AVERAGE INCOME OF RS.11,000/- PE R ACRE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED ONLY RS. 6,000/-. 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND OF MORE THAN 5 ACRES AND WE HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE AVERAGE INCOME OF RS. 11,000/- PER ACRE IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. WE, THEREFORE, ACCEPT RS.11,000/- PER ACRE IN THIS YEAR ALSO. WE, THEREFORE , DIRECT TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 14 18. IN GROUND NO. 2 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE FAMILY SOLD PLOT OF LAND AT CHUNA BHATTI, BHOPAL TO CI BUILDERS AT RS. 1,42,00,000/-. TH E ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 1/6 TH SHARE WHICH COMES TO RS.21,53,546/-. THE ASSESSEE INVESTED RS.15,75,000/- IN PURCHASE OF HOUSE AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT OF RS. 14,76,031/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.6,83,515/- WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE CLAIM BY HOLDING THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS TO BE EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL PLOT PURCHASED BY HIM DURING THE CURRENT YEAR ONLY AND MENTIONED THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL PLOT FROM M/S GAYATRI GRIHA NIRMAN SOCIETY FOR RS. 68,050/- AND ALSO MADE PAYMENT TO SHRI SHARAD AGNIHOTRI OF RS. 2 LACS AND SHRI VIMAL YADAV RS.45,000/-. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED OTHER NEW PROPERTIES WITHIN 15 THREE YEARS OF TRANSFER OF LAND. THUS, THE ASSESSEE I S NOT FOUND ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 19. ON THIS ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE OTHER CO-OWNERS CASE OF SMT. KUSUM SHARMA, THE ITAT HAS SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS PLEAD ED THAT IT WAS SET ASIDE BY HOLDING THAT TRANSACTION WAS GENUINE AND THROUGH CHEQUES AND WAS EXECUTED PRIOR TO SEARCH. IT WAS SET ASIDE DUE TO THE FACT THAT M/S HARE KRISHNA COLONISER HAVE NOT SUBMITTED AUDITED ACCOUNT FO R VERIFICATION. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THE ACCOUNTS ARE SUBMITTED AND LIST OF PURCHASERS IS ALSO FILED . PLEAD ED TO ALLOW THE GROUND. 20. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CO-O WNER I.E. SMT. KUSUM SHARMA IN IT(SS)A 36-40/ IND/ 2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.11.2014. 16 21. IN ASSESSEES CASE THE TRANSACTION IS THROUGH BANKIN G CHANNEL. IT WAS EXECUTED PRIOR TO SEARCH. THEREFORE, I T WAS NOT AN AFTER-THOUGHT. IN THAT CASE M/S HARE KRISHNA COLONISERS PRIVATE LIMITED HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE AUDI TORS ACCOUNTS WHETHER THE SALE WAS RECORDED IN THEIR ACCOUNT S BUT IN ASSESSEES CASE M/S HARE KRISHNA COLONISERS PRI VATE LIMITED HAVE FILED THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND THE LIST OF CUSTOMERS WHO HAD PURCHASED. IT CLAIMED THAT THE PLOTS SOLD TO ASSESSEE FORM PART OF THE TURNOVER OF M/S HARE KRISHNA COLONISERS PVT. LTD.. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASE D DUPLEX HOUSE NO. 49 FROM M/S HARE KRISHNA COLONISERS PRIVATE LIMITED ON 21.3.2004. THIS TRANSACTION IS REFL ECTED IN THE LIST OF M/S HARE KRISHNA COLONISERS PRIVATE LIM ITED. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOW ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS. IT IS CLAIMED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE BY CHEQUES AND THESE PAYMENTS WERE PRI OR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE AGREEMENT WITH M/S HARE 17 KRISHNA COLONISERS PRIVATE LIMITED PLACED AT PAGES 29 TO 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WITH REGARD TO PURCHASES OF OTHER PLOTS LOCATED AT GANESH NAGAR IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT IT WAS A PURCHASE OF PLOT, NOT OF HOUSE. THE PROVISO TO SUB-S ECTION (1) OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT THE ASSES SEE CANNOT PURCHASE ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE N EW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF TR ANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; OR CONSTRUCTS ANY RESIDENTIAL HO USE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEAR S AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. THUS, THE PROVISO RESTRICTS ONLY THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HO USE BUT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE PURCHASE OF PLOT. KEE PING ALL THESE FACTS IN VIEW, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF LIST SUBMITTED BY THE BUILDER M/S HARE KRISHNA COLONISER PVT. LTD. AN D IF FOUND IN ORDER, ALLOW CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 18 22. GROUND NO. 3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQU IRE ANY ADJUDICATION. IT(SS)128/IND/2014 A.Y. 2005-06 23. IN GROUND NO. 1 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SUSTAININ G THE PART ADDITION OF RS.1,20,250/- TREATING THE SAME AS INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES C LAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,65,250/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS EARNED RS.8928/- PER ACRE FROM LAND AT GRAM SAKROLI, GANJ BASODIA AND RS. 7200/- PER ACRE FROM 5.00 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT TUMAR KHEDA TEHSIL HUZUR. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE REVENUE HAS PARTLY ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT ITAT HAS ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME MUCH MORE THAN THAT AT RS. 22,000/- PER ACRE FOR ONE YEAR. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. AS WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ACCEPTING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.11,000/- PER ACRE (SUPRA), THEREFORE, FOR THIS YEAR ALSO 19 WE DIRECT TO ESTIMATE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY ADOPTI NG THE INCOME AT RS.11,000/- PER ACRE. THE BALANCE AMOUNT I S SUSTAINED AS UNEXPLAINED. 24. IN GROUND NO. 2 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.1,60,000/- FROM SMT. ARCHANA OF RS.60,000/- AND FROM D.K. CHORSE OF RS. 1 LAC. 25. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE CONFIRMATION OF T HE LOAN AND ESTABLISH TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF T HESE PERSONS. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THESE PERSONS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND MADE THE ADDITION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMATION THE ADDITION. 26. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM SMT. ARCHANA VATS. SHE IS INCO ME TAX PAYER. SHE ALSO GAVE PAN DETAILS. LOAN FROM D.K. CHOUREY WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THESE PARTIES. THE TRANSACTIO N 20 WAS THROUGH CHEQUES. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PARIKH & CO. (SUPRA) HELD THAT AFFIDAVIT FI LED BUT NOT EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES WITHOUT CROSS EXAMINATION, THE SAME COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH CHEQUE AND THESE WERE PRIOR T O SEARCH. SMT. ARCHANA IS THE SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE HAVIN G INCOME FROM SALARY FROM TEACHING AND HOUSE PROPERTY. D. K. CHORSE WAS A PROPERTY DEALER AND HAVING REGULAR DEALINGS WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THESE PERSONS WERE WELL KNOWN T O THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING THESE FACTS IN VIEW, WE FIND T HAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT TO DELETE THE SAME. 27. GROUND NO. 3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 28. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 9 TH DECEMBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 9 TH DECEMBER, 2015