2022 (1) TMI 123 - AT - Income Tax

Agricultural income - enhancement made on account of agricultural income - HELD THAT - Issue decided in favour of assessee 2022 (1) TMI 52 - ITAT SURAT we find no reason to interfere in the said order of the Division Bench, therefore respectfully following the judgment of the Division Bench in assessee s own group cases, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and we also delete the agricultural income enhanced by the ld. CIT(A). We note that in a few group of assessees Assessing Officer made addition as the assessee has travelled/made investment. The Ld. counsel contended that small expenditure incurred for travel and investment etc. were out of the agricultural income. The small cash deposit was made in to bank account out of agriculture income and the said issue has been dealt with by us in assessee s own group cases. Addition on account of unexplained jewellery - No evidence in the form of invoice and the payment made by the assessee were found during the course of search. Further it is submitted that there was no seizure of the jewellery in the course of the search as the jewellery held by the assessee and other family members were within the permissible limit of the CBDT vide Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. In such case, no addition can be made.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Agricultural Income and Enhancement of Agricultural Income
2. Unexplained Jewellery
3. Unexplained Foreign Traveling Expenses

Detailed Analysis:

1. Agricultural Income and Enhancement of Agricultural Income:
The main issue was whether the assessees had sufficient land holdings to justify the cash deposits in their bank accounts from agricultural income. The Tribunal's Division Bench had previously adjudicated similar issues in favor of the assessees, establishing that the agricultural income was legitimate. The assessees provided detailed evidence, including balance sheets, agricultural income accounts, and ledger accounts from agricultural cooperatives, which were not refuted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the previous decision, noting that the CIT(A) did not provide cogent evidence to counter the assessees' claims. The Tribunal emphasized that the agricultural income was supported by substantial land holdings and consistent agricultural activities, and no incriminating material was found during the search to suggest otherwise.

2. Unexplained Jewellery:
For A.Y. 2010-11, the Assessing Officer added ?4,57,486/- on account of unexplained jewellery. The assessees argued that the jewellery was within the permissible limits set by CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, and no invoices or payment evidence were found during the search. The Tribunal agreed with the assessees, referencing decisions from various High Courts that supported the non-addition of jewellery within permissible limits. Consequently, the addition was deleted.

3. Unexplained Foreign Traveling Expenses:
In the case of Pinal I Patel for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2014-15, the Assessing Officer added ?60,000/- and ?1,00,000/- respectively for unexplained foreign travel expenses. The assessees contended that these expenses were covered by household withdrawals from agricultural income. The Tribunal found these amounts to be minor considering the family's status and deleted the additions, following the precedent set in the assessees' own group cases.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the issues of agricultural income and its enhancement were already settled in favor of the assessees in previous judgments, and no new evidence was presented to alter this view. The additions for unexplained jewellery and foreign travel expenses were also deleted based on the evidence provided and precedents cited. All appeals filed by the assessees were allowed, and the additions made by the Assessing Officer and enhanced by the CIT(A) were deleted. The order was pronounced on 24/12/2021.