2011 (2) TMI 283 - HC - Income Tax

Cash credit - Agricultural income - Source - The finding recorded by the Tribunal being based on consideration of non-existent material is vitiated and liable to be set aside - The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee has no applicability to the facts of the present case - Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue - The appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set-aside - The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against deletion of addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Assessment of agricultural income.
3. Burden of proof on the assessee regarding cash deposits.

Issue 1: Appeal against deletion of addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The appeal was filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The substantial question of law raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.17,19,000 made under Section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal by holding that the amount could be derived from the sale proceeds of 100 acres of land. The revenue contended that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and source of the cash deposit, as per the findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Tribunal's decision was based on conjectures without material evidence to support the claim. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, stating that the finding was based on non-existent material and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh proceedings.

Issue 2: Assessment of agricultural income:

The primary consideration in this case was whether the assessee had derived agricultural income amounting to Rs.17,19,000. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) concluded that the assessee failed to prove that the cash deposit was from agricultural income. The CIT(A) emphasized that the onus to establish the genuineness and source of the cash deposit was on the assessee, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal's decision to delete the addition was based on the assumption that the amount could be grown from land sale proceeds without substantial evidence. The High Court found the Tribunal's finding to be unsupported and set it aside.

Issue 3: Burden of proof on the assessee regarding cash deposits:

The revenue argued that the assessee did not fulfill the burden of proof regarding the source of the cash deposit. The CIT(A) highlighted that merely filing an affidavit or ledger account was insufficient to discharge the onus of proof. The Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition as the source of the money deposited was not explained adequately. The High Court agreed with the revenue's contention and held that the Tribunal's decision lacked material evidence to support the claim of deriving the amount from land sale proceeds. The judgments cited by the assessee were deemed inapplicable to the facts of the case.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the court's reasoning leading to the decision to set aside the Tribunal's order and remit the matter for fresh proceedings.