PANDIT GANGADHAR KAWALE,,NANDED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law: Ground No 1: The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,42,312 made by the AO observing that the Appellant has failed to justify source from which the Appellant has introduced this amount in his business. Ground No 2: The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding disallowance of Rs.62,132 of the Appellant’s agricultural income made by the AO for inability of the Appellant to furnish sale patties corresponding to such income. In view of the above ground and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays your Honours to delete the additions to the returned income made by the AO which has been subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT(A).

The appeal was fixed for hearing on different dates starting from 26.10.2016 and none appeared on behalf of assessee. On the last two dates of hearing, the Counsel for assessee appeared and sought adjournment and noted the next date of hearing. For the appointed date of hearing, notice was issued to the assessee. However, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any application was moved for adjournment. So, the appeal is decided ex parte the assessee but after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.

The first issue raised is against the addition of ₹ 10,42,312/- and the second issue raised vide ground of appeal No.2 is against disallowance of ₹ 62,132/- out of agricultural income.

Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 1,72,027/- and agricultural income of ₹ 2,70,320/-. On the basis of AIR information, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee.

The CIT(A) deleted GP addition made in the hands of assessee. In respect of unexplained credits of ₹ 23,72,800/-, the assessee explained that ₹ 12,50,500/- was introduced out of his agricultural income and loans from relatives. Further, balance sum of ₹ 11,48,860/- was invested out of funds of HUF of his father / grandfather on 29.05.2008. The CIT(A) after considering various evidences filed by the assessee, first held that investment of ₹ 11,42,360/- was made in the purchase of land by the assessee in the

In respect of addition made on account of agricultural income of ₹ 81,096/-, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee has failed to produce sale patties in support of agricultural income of ₹ 2,70,320/- during the course of assessment proceedings and the assessee could furnish only sale patties for ₹ 2,08,188/- during appellate proceedings. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer in order to examine the claim of assessee vis-à-vis agricultural income. The CIT(A) further observed that the disallowance of ₹ 81,096/- was made by the Assessing Officer almost corresponding to inability of the assessee to furnish sale patties. The CIT(A) however, restricted the addition to ₹ 62,132/-. Against both the additions, the assessee is in appeal.

On perusal of record and after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue, I find that the assessee though claims that the source of funds is out of his agricultural income but has failed to establish his case on the basis of concrete evidence. In the absence of the same, where the assessee has failed to establish its case of agricultural income being available to it and in view of the evidences filed before the authorities below, wherein his

The second addition on account of agricultural income is also linked one, where the assessee has failed to furnish sale patties to establish its case of earning the requisite amount of agricultural income. In the absence of same, the order of CIT(A) is upheld and the grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee are thus, dismissed.

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed.