P.YASODA,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM

PER Bench:

These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against

common order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I

{CIT(A)}, Hyderabad vide ITA Nos.0386 to 0390/CC-2, Vizag/CIT(A)-

I/11-12 dated 27.12.2012 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2010-11. Since, the facts are identical and issues are common, they are clubbed, P. Yasoda, Visakhapatnam heard together and disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience.

ITA Nos.178 to 181/Vizag/2013: (A.Y. 2006-07 to 2009-10)

made by the A.O. amounting to ` 50,000/- of agricultural income.

During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. found that the assessee

had admitted agricultural income of ` 3.00 lakhs. Since the assessee did

not produce any documentary evidence regarding agricultural income,

the A.O. disallowed ` 50,000/- out of agricultural income on ` 3 lakhs

and added back to the income.

before the CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal

before us.

industry and average income for 3 years is ` 70,000/- per acre which works out to approximately ` 23,500/- per annum. In 4.30 acres it is P. Yasoda, Visakhapatnam certified by the VRO that the assessee is cultivating mango garden and average income per year is` 24,000 per acre In a total the assessee

owns 21.36 acres and as per the certificate given by the VRO/VAO, the average agricultural income per year would be more than ` 3 lakhs.

Though the A.O. accepted the agricultural income of ` 2.5 lakhs, he did

not accept the balance amount of ` 50,000/- and made the disallowance

on estimation basis without assigning any reason. Since the assessee is owning 21.36 acres and the VRO and VAO have certified that the assessee is cultivating the Eucalyptus gardens and mango gardens, we

do not see any reason to suspect the agricultural income admitted by the assessee. The Ld. D.R. did not bring any evidence establish that the agricultural income is less than ` 3.00 lakhs for the land holding of 21.36

acres held by the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any reason to sustain the addition made by the A.O. and the same is deleted.

Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow the appeals

of the assessee.

of assessment without the incriminating material. Since we have allowed the appeals of the assessee on merits, we consider it not necessary to adjudicate the assessee’s ground on technical issue of validity of assessment, accordingly, the additional ground raised by the P. Yasoda, Visakhapatnam assessee in ground No.4 with regard to the validity of assessment is dismissed.

ITA No.182/Vizag/2013:

adjudication.

Ground No.2 is related to the addition made by the A.O.

amounting to ` 50,000/- with regard to the agricultural income. This issue has been discussed in the assessee’s case in earlier paragraphs for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the addition made by the A.O. is deleted and assessee’s appeal on this ground is allowed.

relating to the gold and jewellery u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter called as 'the Act'). During the course of search u/s 132 of the Act in group cases of SLC Projects Ltd., the residential premises of Shri Subba Raju was also searched and the incriminating material

evidencing the unexplained investments, documents was found and P. Yasoda, Visakhapatnam seized. The assessee is wife of Sri Subba Raju and during the course of search, the gold, jewellery weighing 1190 gms. was found to be belonging to the assessee. During the course of assessment

proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the sources for the investment of gold and jewellery and the assessee explained that a search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the assessee’s business

premises on 27.4.1988 and the gold and jewellery of 349 gms was found which is said to be carried forward from 1988. The remaining

gold was said to be purchased by the assessee or acquired by inheritance. Since the assessee could not furnish any documentary

evidence, the A.O. allowed 500 gms as per the Board circular and brought to tax the remaining 690 gms valued around ` 8,85,960/- u/s 69 of the Act.

before the CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the A.O.

gold was found at the time of search on 27.4.1988, which required to be excluded from the gold found weighing around 1190 gms. With regard

to the remaining jewellery, the assessee explained that the gold was received as a gift from his mother and some gold was received from mother-in-law and gold coins were purchased from Bank of India on P. Yasoda, Visakhapatnam 6.8.2008 weighing 120 gms and ICICI Bank on 19.10.2006. The Ld.

A.R. submitted that all the details were furnished before the A.O. and duly accounted in the books of accounts and sources were explained for acquiring the gold jewellery. However, on careful verification of assessment order, the A.O. stated that the assessee has not furnished

any evidence to establish that the gold jewellery of 690 gms was acquired from the explained sources. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the issue should be remitted back to the file of the A.O. to verify the sources of gold

jewellery acquired by the assessee and decide the issue afresh on merits. Accordingly the issue is set a side and remitted back to the file

of the AO to decide on merits.

is allowed for statistical purposes. The above order was pronounced in the open court on 9th Mar’18. (वी. दुगा"राव) ( ड.एस. . . . सु"दर "संह) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #वशाखापटणम /Visakhapatnam: 'दनांक /Dated : 09.03.2018 VG/SPS P. Yasoda, Visakhapatnam आदेश क" ""त)ल#प अ*े#षत/Copy of the order forwarded to:-

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM

7