Case Law Details
Sanjeev Kumar Malik Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
As could be seen from the facts on record to explain the source of investment in purchase of land amounting to Rs.45,78,550, the assessee has submitted that Rs.21,70,000 were out of earlier withdrawals from various bank accounts in name of self, father and Whereas, the balance amount was from the sale of various agricultural produces like sugarcane, maize and potato etc. However, in course of assessment proceedings, while the Assessing Officer accepted the withdrawals from bank and past savings, he rejected the claim of loan from mother and brother as well as part of agricultural income, claimed to have been received from sale of potato. However, he accepted that the assessee received some amount from the sale of crops like sugarcane and maize.
In course of first appellate proceedings, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had directed the Assessing Officer to examine the evidences including sale invoices of agricultural produce and in the remand report, the Assessing Officer has partly accepted assessee’ s claim on sale of potato, to the extent of Rs.10,36,305 out of Rs.24,00,000. He has rejected balance amount only because sale invoices were not produced by the assessee.
The fact that the assessee has sold agricultural produce, cannot be disputed because, even, the departmental authorities have accepted a part of assessee’ s receipts from sale of agricultural produce. Only a part of amount claimed to have been received from sale of potato has been rejected due to alleged non-furnishing of evidence.
In my view, when the assessee has established on record that it had receipts from sale of agricultural produce, only because some invoices relating to sale are not available, asses see’s claim cannot be More so, considering the reasonable quantum of sale proceeds.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
