Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. In so far as agricultural income of ` 54,810/- was concerned, assessee had given only the location of property and nature of crops as rice and vegetable. It is also true that value of Vedal Village property was shown by the assessee as 55,897.20 only. Assessing Officer C.O. Nos. 193 to 199/Mds/09, I.T.A. No. 486 to 488/Mds/10, I.T.A. Nos. 1640 & 1641/Mds/09, accepted the reply given by the assessee vide her letter dated 13th December, 2007 without making any enquiry. Income from property being almost in the vicinity of the value of the property itself, in our opinion, it should have caught the attention of the A.O. and he should have made more enquires. This was not done. Similarly, on notional income of Mumbai and Calcutta property also, there was no proper answer given by the assessee nor any enquiries done by the A.O. However, with regard to investment of ` 45 lakhs made by the assessee in M/s ITCOT Ltd., Assessing Officer considered it to be deemed dividend, the amount having been received by the assessee from M/s Prakash Gold Palace (P) Ltd. The account statement wherein the advance received by the assessee through bank from the said company, and investment made by the assessee in M/s ITCOT Ltd. were reflected in the relevant bank statement filed by the learned A.R. in the course of original assessment proceedings. Thus, assessee had clearly shown the details of the source of ` 45 lakhs that she had invested in M/s ITCOT Ltd. Assessee could not give any information regarding the purpose of investment in ITCOT Ltd.

C.O. Nos. 193 to 199/Mds/09, I.T.A. No. 486 to 488/Mds/10, I.T.A. Nos. 1640 & 1641/Mds/09, except stating that it was given bidding for property. However, the question regarding the source of investment was definitely provided at the time of original assessment proceedings and considered in the assessment. We cannot say A.O. had not applied his mind here. There was no error in this regard much less any that could be termed as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Hence, in so far as the issue relating to investment of ` 45 lakhs in ITCOT Ltd. is concerned, we are of the opinion that there was no error in the order of Assessing Officer which was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In so far as other two issues, namely, agricultural income of ` 54,810/- and notional income from Mumbai and Calcutta property, there was no enquiry made by the Assessing Officer at the assessment stage. Hence, we can say there was error which was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on these two items. We, therefore, uphold the order of ld. CIT under Section 263 in so far as it relate to agricultural income and notional income from Mumbai and Calcutta property, whereas, quash his order so far as it relates to investment of ` 45 lakhs made in ITCOT Ltd.

39. With regard to the investment made by the assessee in ITCOT Ltd., we have already held that Assessing Officer had made proper enquiries and assessee had given detailed replies during the course of assessment, in the case of Smt. Suraj Kumari Jain, at para 27 supra. The Assessing Officer after due application of mind, had C.O. Nos. 193 to 199/Mds/09, I.T.A. No. 486 to 488/Mds/10, I.T.A. Nos. 1640 & 1641/Mds/09, come to a conclusion that the investment made by the assessee was out of advance received by him from M/s Prakash Gold Palace (P) Ltd. and such advance was considered for addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This being the case, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had made proper enquiries and there was no error whatsoever in the order of the A.O. in so far as investment in M/s ITCOT Ltd. was concerned. In any case, for assessment year 2004-05, there was no additional investment whatsoever made by the assessee in M/s ITCOT Ltd. but only repayment received by the assessee from the said company. However, with regard agricultural income, the Assessing Officer had not made any proper enquiry on the details furnished by the assessee. Assessee had not given the extent of the holding or any evidence for the receipt of agricultural income. Similarly, for sale of agricultural land, one of issues raised by ld. CIT for assessment year 2004-05, also there was no enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. The learned A.R. could not place any evidence before us that assessee had given full particulars with regard to sale of C.O. Nos. 193 to 199/Mds/09, I.T.A. No. 486 to 488/Mds/10, I.T.A. Nos. 1640 & 1641/Mds/09, agricultural land. In so far as claim of deduction under Section 80D for assessment year 2004-05 is concerned, it is an admitted position that the assessee had given evidence for such deduction along with the return of income and this definitely would have been considered by the A.O. while giving such deduction.

40. In a nutshell, we hold that the orders of ld. CIT for both the assessment years, in so far as it relates to investment in M/s ITCOT Ltd. was not warranted. However, in so far as the aspect of agricultural income and sale of agricultural land is concerned, the Assessing Officer was silent and no proper enquiries having been done, the order under Section 263 was justified. Vis-à-vis claim of deduction under Section 80D of the Act, the Assessing Officer gave such a deduction after considering the evidence filed by the assessee along with return and therefore, it cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Therefore, we uphold the order of ld. CIT in so far as it relates to aspects other than investment in M/s ITCOT Ltd. and claim of deduction under Section 80D of the Act are concerned. Ordered accordingly.