The dispute is regarding addition of Rs.14,60,052/- made by AO on account of unsecured loans from Shri Balwantbhai Grewal. There is no dispute that the said amount had been shown as loan in books of account of the assessee. Assessee could not produce any evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of Shri Balwantbhai Grewal who lived in UK and genuineness of transaction. Subsequently before CIT(A), assessee submitted that the amount had been wrongly entered in books and the same related to transaction of Shri Balwantbhai Grewal with the sister concern M/s. Kaypan Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.
Assessee is an agent of Government of Maharashtra and also considering the fact that Hon’ble High Court granted stay to the assessee for the recovery of the demand when the appeal was pending before ld CIT(A), we hold that the assessee has a prima facie case for grant of stay for recovery of the dues pending disposal of appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we grant stay for recovery of the demand for A.Y. 2006-07 for a period of 6 months or till disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier.
In the present case, the land owned by the assessee comes within the purview of urban area and the assessee is carrying on agricultural activities on the same. There is nothing on record to show that construction of building on assessee’s land is prohibited.
In instant case, the Assessing Officer had proposed to tax the amount as capital gains, as against the assessee’s claim that the same is not taxable. Accordingly, having recorded the fact that the assessee otherwise qualified for such set off, the set off should not have been disallowed on the ground that the same was not claimed in the return of income. He maintained that the assessee was well within her right to make claims during the assessment proceedings and it does not amount to filing revised computation.
The term ‘agriculture’ has not been defined in the Act. One must necessarily fall back upon the sense in which it is understood in common parlance. ‘Agriculture’ in its root sense means ‘Agar’ a field and ‘culture’, cultivation of a field which of course implies expenditure on human skills and labour upon land. For growing coconut trees one has to perform basic essential operations which involve expenditure of human skill and labour upon the land.
However, we would like to take this opportunity to bring to the notice of CBDT that after the procedure of Central processing of returns, many issues have come before various forums where unnecessary demands have been raised due to non-grant of TDS, wrong computation of income, adjustment of the previous year demand which have already been deleted by the jurisdictional assessing officer. Therefore, we would like to urge the CBDT to take up this matter urgently and establish proper coordination between the assessing authority and Central Processing Authority so that these problems are immediately solved and unnecessary litigation can be avoided. Copy of this order should be forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarh and Chairman of CBDT for necessary action.
The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A) was challenged by the assessee before the ITAT in an appeal. The ITAT has decided the said appeal in favour of the assessee. Therefore, at present, when the addition itself has been set aside, there cannot be any case for levy of penalty for concealment of income.
Authorities have put the onus on the assessee to prove that the said bank account is bogus. In this regard, assessee has categorically stated that the said account was not opened by the assessee. The bank has not replied to the query of the Assessing Officer. So adverse inference on the assessee cannot be made in this regard. In our considered opinion, interest of justice will be served if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh.
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panchvati Motors (P) Ltd. in ITA No.292 of 2008, dated 3.05.2011 has held that in a case where no objection regarding valid service was taken before the completion of assessment, provisions of sec. 292BB will be applicable to all pending assessments as on 1.04.2008. Since the provisions of sec. 292BB(1) are applicable for Assessment Year in question as the proceedings were pending as on that date and the assessee had not raised any objection during the course of assessment proceedings and had participated in the assessment proceedings, the assessment cannot be annulled on the ground that valid notice u/s 143(2) was not served on the assessee. Accordingly in our considered opinion as held by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Panchvati Motors (P) Ltd. (supra), assessment cannot be annulled.
With respect to assessment framed u/s 143(3) dated 30.11.2010, addition of Rs.1,32,52040/- was made, against which the assessee filed appeal and CIT(A) deleted such addition vide order dated 31.5.2011 against which the department filed appeal and Tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A) vide order dated 25.10.2011 in I.T.A No.3641/Del.2011 for assessment year 2008-09. Meanwhile, Assessing Officer passed another order u/s 154/143(3) on 3.2.2011 making the same addition, against which assessee filed appeal and CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition while following his earlier order dated 31.5.2011.
