2019 (11) TMI 1370 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits u/s 68 - receipts on sale of agricultural produce deposited into the bank account were withdrawn and also be deposited into the bank account - HELD THAT - Assessee has been making cash deposits and also making corresponding cash withdrawals. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the gross receipts from the agricultural operations were deposited, withdrawn and redeposited cannot be brushed aside in toto. The AO has relied upon the statement of the assessee recorded during the course of search, wherein he stated that he is also into various real estate business and cash deposits are from receipts of such business as well. Therefore, we are inclined to accept that some of the deposits to be from real estate business, while the others are from cash withdrawals made earlier. In view of the same, we are inclined to treat 50% of the deposits, which have been treated as income from other sources as unexplained and the balance 50%, we are inclined to accept the same as part of the agricultural income (in addition to ₹ 30 lakhs already treated as agricultural income by the AO) as redeposited into the bank account. Assessee gets relief accordingly. Thus, only 50% of the addition made by the AO is sustained. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of cash deposits as income from unexplained sources, treatment of agricultural income, validity of AO's estimation of income, determination of sources of cash deposits, consideration of agricultural operations as source of bank deposits.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two appeals by the assessee against CIT(A) orders dated 01/03/2018. The assessee, an individual, did not file income tax returns for relevant assessment years. The AO reopened assessment under section 147 due to significant cash deposits in bank accounts. The assessee claimed the deposits were from agricultural income, supported by land holdings and bank statements. The AO estimated agricultural income at ?30 lakhs annually but noted contradictory statements about real estate business and petrol bunk collections. Consequently, the AO treated a portion of deposits as unexplained income.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the appeals before ITAT Hyderabad. The assessee argued for the entire amount to be considered as explained agricultural income, while the revenue authorities supported the original orders. The ITAT found the family owned 58.30 acres of land, with wet and dry portions. The AO did not assess crops grown to determine agricultural income accurately. The assessee explained deposit and withdrawal patterns from agricultural sales, suggesting redeposits. The ITAT noted cash transactions and accepted 50% of deposits as unexplained from real estate business, while the rest was deemed agricultural income redeposited.

Ultimately, ITAT partially allowed both appeals, sustaining only 50% of the additions made by the AO. The judgment balanced agricultural income and unexplained sources, considering the nature of deposits and explanations provided. The decision highlighted the importance of thorough assessment and clear evidence in determining income sources for tax purposes.