2018 (12) TMI 900 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - unexplained cash found deposited in two savings bank account of the assessee - Held that - The explanations furnished by the assessee regarding the source of the same to the authorities below and even before us, which we find, stands accepted by authorities below - Regarding the above facts there is no dispute. Therefore the balance remaining unexplained is ₹ 1,90,000/- , in SBI, Haripur (18,50,000-16,60,000) and ₹ 1,50,000/- in SBOP, Patlikuhal, totaling in all to ₹ 3,40,000/-. Before us the assessee has attributed the source of this cash to its income returned of ₹ 1,37,110/- and agricultural income of ₹ 1,80,000/-. As for plea of the of the assessee for the credit to be given for his income returned of ₹ 1,37,110/-, we find merit in the same. It is not disputed that the assessee has returned the said income to tax. The Ld.DR has not rebutted the aforesaid contention of the assessee that credit be given of the income returned by it for the cash found deposited - No reason for not giving any credit of the same for the cash found deposited in the bank of the assessee. Attributing the cash deposited to agricultural income returned for tax - Held that - Revenue has treated the said income as income from undisclosed sources, rejecting the assessees contention that it was his agricultural income. But the said fact ,we hold, makes no difference so far as source of cash deposit in bank is concerned. Having accepted the fact that the assessee had earned income of ₹ 1,80,000/-, albeit from undisclosed sources, the same can be safely attributed as the source of cash deposited in the bank of the assessee - therefore, we direct that credit for the cash deposited in the bank be given for the income returned by the assessee of ₹ 1,37,110/- the agricultural income of ₹ 1,80,000/- returned by the assessee. Treating the agricultural income returned by the assessee as income from undisclosed sources - Contention for the assessee is that since it had established the ownership of land, the agricultural income earned therefrom was his income - Held that - We find that the CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the said income cannot be treated as his agricultural income since the ownership of land by the assessee was not established and also because in any case agricultural income therefrom from sale of fruit crops of ₹ 9,20,000/- had already been claimed as the income of the father, which was claimed by the assessee as a source of cash found deposited in the bank of the assessee. Assessee has not addressed the issue of income from the said land having already been claimed by the assessee and accepted by the Revenue, as belonging to the father of the assessee. Nothing has been brought before us to show that the agricultural income returned by the assessee of ₹ 1,80,000/- was over and above the income of ₹ 9,20,000/- attributed to the same piece of land in the hands of the father of the assessee. In the absence of the same we see no reason for accepting the contention of the assessee that it had earned agricultural income - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts.
2. Treatment of agricultural income as undisclosed income.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee, engaged in tracking and adventure guidance, had deposited cash in the bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act as the source of cash remained unexplained. The AO accepted part of the explanation provided by the assessee but treated a balance of cash deposit as unexplained. The Commissioner upheld some additions made by the AO, leading to the appeal before the tribunal.

The tribunal considered the explanations provided by the assessee and found merit in attributing a portion of the cash deposits to the income returned by the assessee and agricultural income. The tribunal directed that credit be given for the income returned by the assessee and the agricultural income, partially allowing the appeal on this issue.

Issue 2: Treatment of agricultural income as undisclosed income:
The Commissioner upheld the addition made by the AO regarding the treatment of agricultural income returned by the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. The tribunal noted that the ownership of the land by the assessee was not established, and the agricultural income was already claimed as the father's income, which was used as a source for the cash deposits. The tribunal dismissed the appeal on this issue, stating that there was no evidence to show that the agricultural income returned by the assessee was separate from the income attributed to the father.

In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal regarding the assessment of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts but dismissed the appeal concerning the treatment of agricultural income as undisclosed income.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, detailing the arguments, findings, and decisions made by the authorities and the tribunal.