2015 (12) TMI 978 - HC - Income Tax

Source of the deficit investment made towards the purchase of new agricultural lands - Sole source - Held that - The cash flow statement furnished by the assessee had rightly been admitted by the ld. CIT(A), which is not in dispute. As mentioned the ancestral agricultural land had been sold, which was held jointly by the assessee along with his brother Sh. Amarjit Singh and agricultural land, which has been purchased by the assessee along with his brother Sh. Amarjit Singh in equal share is also not in dispute. Therefore, the deficit of ₹ 11,75,000/- belongs equally to the assessee and his brother Sh. Amarjit Singh and assessee alone cannot be said to be liable for the entire deposit of ₹ 11,75,000/-. The argument of the Ld. DR that Power of Attorney by Sh. Amarjit Singh brother of the assessee had been given to the assessee, does not mean the deficit or levy of tax in toto shall fall on the assessee. Accordingly, the deficit of ₹ 5,87,500/- is on account of the assessee and the other deficit of ₹ 5,87,500/- is on account of brother of the assessee, Sh. Amarjit Singh. Accordingly, the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is restricted to ₹ 5,87,500/- in view of our findings hereinabove. As regards the arguments by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee is having only source of income as salary income or agricultural income and the deficit so arisen should be treated as sale proceeds of the agricultural land and not to be accepted for the reason that the assessee had never treated the said deficit as agricultural income in his cash flow statement or recasted cash flow statement before any of the authorities below or even before us. Also in the absence of any cogent explanation or any evidence or arguments made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. P.K. Noorjahan vs. CIT (1997 (1) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court) cannot help the assessee. Accordingly, the AO is directed to sustain the addition of ₹ 5,87,500/- and is directed to delete the rest of the addition amounting to ₹ 5,87,500/-. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Rejection of the appellant's explanation regarding the source of deficit investment for purchasing new agricultural lands.
2. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,87,500/- in the hands of the appellant.
3. Failure to appreciate the sole source of income as salary and the relation of the deficit investment to the sale of ancestral agricultural lands.
4. Exercise of discretion by lower authorities in making additions regarding the source of the deficit investment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the appellant's explanation regarding the source of deficit investment for purchasing new agricultural lands:

The appellant argued that the deficit investment towards the purchase of new agricultural lands should be attributed to the sale proceeds of ancestral agricultural lands. The Tribunal, however, found the explanation unsatisfactory. The appellant's sole source of income was his salary as a Machine Operator with M/s Nestle India Ltd., and the deficit emerged during the period when ancestral lands were sold. Despite this, the Tribunal did not accept the appellant's claim that the deficit should be considered under 'Capital gains' rather than 'Income from other sources.' The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence or arguments presented by the appellant to substantiate his claim.

2. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 5,87,500/- in the hands of the appellant:

The Assessing Officer initially assessed the appellant's income at Rs. 43,86,580/- due to unexplained cash credits of Rs. 42,00,000/- deposited in the Allahabad Bank account. The CIT(A) reduced this addition to Rs. 11,75,000/- after considering the appellant's explanation and additional evidence. The Tribunal further restricted this addition to Rs. 5,87,500/-, attributing half of the deficit to the appellant and the other half to his brother, Shri Amarjit Singh. The Tribunal reasoned that since the agricultural land was jointly held and sold by the appellant and his brother, the deficit should be equally shared.

3. Failure to appreciate the sole source of income as salary and the relation of the deficit investment to the sale of ancestral agricultural lands:

The appellant contended that his sole source of income was his salary, and the deficit investment should logically be linked to the sale proceeds of ancestral agricultural lands. The Tribunal, however, did not accept this argument, noting that the appellant had not treated the deficit as agricultural income in his cash flow statements before any authorities. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of any cogent explanation or evidence from the appellant to support his claim.

4. Exercise of discretion by lower authorities in making additions regarding the source of the deficit investment:

The appellant argued that the lower authorities failed to exercise discretion properly when making additions related to the source of the deficit investment. The Tribunal, however, found that the CIT(A) had appropriately considered the additional evidence and explanations provided by the appellant. The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence, recognizing the limited time the appellant had to explain the cash deposits during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit the additional evidence and found that the cash deposits were explained based on the amounts received from the sale of ancestral agricultural lands.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal's findings were based on the material on record and a thorough appreciation of the cash flow statements provided by the appellant. The Tribunal's decision to restrict the addition to Rs. 5,87,500/- was deemed plausible, and no substantial question of law arose from the appellant's claims. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's judgment was upheld. The Tribunal's decision was found to be well-reasoned and did not warrant interference by the High Court.