2013 (12) TMI 1406 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of unexplained cash deposit Agricultural income form land - Held that - a person can be expected to have a reasonable cash in hand when he is having the bank account - Nothing has been brought on record by either of the parties what was the position of the attempts made by the assessee and what was the standard of the family of the assessee - The agricultural income have been accepted during the year and to that extent the Revenue has allowed the credit to the assessee, while accepting the course of the deposit of Rs.4 lakhs to the extent of Rs.2,10,360 - It cannot be denied that the assessee was not having any opening cash in hand Partly allowed in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Sustenance of addition of unexplained cash deposit under 'Income from Other Sources'.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2006-2007, where the only issue concerns the sustenance of an addition of Rs.1,89,640 as unexplained cash deposit under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. The assessee had deposited Rs.4 lakhs in their bank account, attributing the source to current and earlier year's agricultural income. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed credit for Rs.2,10,360 but added the balance amount as the assessee's income. The CIT(A) confirmed Rs.2,10,360 as agricultural income but sustained the addition of Rs.1,89,640. The assessee argued that the agricultural receipts were mainly in cash from land tillers, totaling Rs.4,93,410 over four years, with Rs.4 lakhs deposited during the relevant year. The CIT(A) rejected the contention based on the fund flow statement and lack of cash in hand evidence.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue accepted the agricultural income for the year. It reasoned that if the assessee earned agricultural income in the relevant year, it is reasonable to assume the same for earlier years. The Tribunal highlighted that possessing cash is not prohibited by tax laws, and an individual need not deposit all cash in the bank. Considering the lack of direct evidence, the Tribunal relied on circumstantial evidence. It estimated a reasonable opening cash in hand of Rs.1 lakh, deleting this amount from the addition. The Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs.89,640, emphasizing it was based on estimation. Ultimately, the appeal was partly allowed, with the addition of Rs.89,640 being sustained.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision balanced the acceptance of agricultural income with the assessment of unexplained cash deposits, emphasizing the importance of reasonable cash holdings and circumstantial evidence in such cases.