ITO, WARD- 21(4), NEW DELHI vs. BIKRAM SINGH PROP., NEW DELHI

The grievance of the revenue reads as under ;-

Representatives of both the sides were heard at length.

Underlying facts relating to the grievance raised vide Ground No.1 are that the AO had proceeded to make an addition of Rs.4,52,25,000/- allegedly representing an amount earned by way of short term capital gain, on the basis of 26 AS statement for F.Y.13-14, wherein, the AO noted that M/s. DLF Utilities Limited had deducted the tax at source of Rs.4,52,25,000/- on a sum of Rs.4,52,25,000/-credited to the account of the assessee.

On the basis of this information, the AO asked the assessee to furnish justification for not offering any income as capital gain.

The sale deed was executed on 17.06.2014, which falls in F.Y.2014-15, relating to A.Y.2015-16. The submissions of the assessee did not find favour with the AO, who made the addition.

The assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) and explained the facts.

After considering the facts and the submissions, the CIT(A) held as under :-

Before us, the DR supported the findings of the AO.

Per contra, the Counsel for the assessee reiterated the facts which were stated before the AO and the CIT(A).

We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. There is no denial that the transfer of the property was made on 17.06.2014, pertaining to A.Y.2015-16. Since the transaction does not fall in the year under consideration, we do not find any error or infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A).

Facts relating to Ground No.2 are that the assessee had claimed having derived agricultural income of Rs.38,86,226/-.

The AO was of the opinion that the income from agriculture was grossly inflated, as the same was disproportionate to the expenses claimed.

The assessee was asked to give details of the crops raised and sold during the year, the area of land under cultivation and the details of agricultural expenses. On receiving no plausible reply, the AO concluded by holding that the reported income is not through the agriculture and accordingly made the addition of Rs.3886226/- as income from other sources.

The assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) and pointed out that he was into agricultural activities since A.Y.2010-11 and the same has been accepted till A.Y.2013-14.

Before us the Ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the AO. The Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, furnished a chart of agricultural income shown and accepted in the earlier assessment years.

We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. We find that in A.Y.2010-11, the assessee has shown income of Rs.31,30,479/-, in A.Y. 2011-12, Rs.31,02,251/-, in A.Y.2012-13, of Rs.31,02,251/-, in A.Y.2012-13 of Rs. 32,38,827/-, and in A.Y. 2013-14, of Rs.21,99,533/-. In all these years, the agricultural income shown by the assessee has been accepted by the AO. We, therefore, do not find any reason for not accepting the same for the year under consideration too.

The underlying facts relating to Ground No.3 are that the assessee has claimed interest expenses of Rs.77,95,075/-, paid through overdraft, against fixed deposits, as deduction against interest income from FDRs. The assessee was asked to justify the claim of such deduction and to establish the nexus between the funds borrowed and those deposited in FDRs. On receiving no plausible reply, the AO disallowed Rs.77,95,075/-.

The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and explained that a similar disallowance, made in A.Y.2013-14, has been deleted by the CIT(A), and further explained that in the immediately succeeding assessment year A.Y.2015-16, the AO himself has accepted the claim; and that after considering the facts, the CIT(A) held as under :-

Before us, the Ld.DR supported the assessment order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that the asessee had been claiming deduction from A.Y.2009-10, which had been allowed in the earlier and later assessment years. The Ld. Counsel furnished a chart are as under :-

Since similar claim has consistently been allowed since A.Y. 2009-10, and is also allowed in the immediately succeeding A.Y.2015-16, we do not find any reason as to why on an identical set of facts, disallowance has been made by the AO during the year under consideration. Considering the facts in totality, we do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, Ground No.3 is also rejected.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 16.03.2022 in the presence of both the rival representatives.