9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of additions of Rs. 22,075 and Rs. 4,000 by the CIT(A). 2. Sustaining an addition of Rs. 80,000 as unexplained cash credit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Additions of Rs. 22,075 and Rs. 4,000 by the CIT(A): The Revenue's appeal contested the deletion of additions made by the AO, amounting to Rs. 22,075 and Rs. 4,000, by the CIT(A). The AO had questioned the genuineness of the agricultural income declared by the assessee, who claimed to have earned Rs. 75,607 from 40 bighas of land given on 'Batai' (crop-sharing) to her mother-in-law, Smt. Jyoti Devi, and Rs. 4,000 from renting land for pasture. The AO noted discrepancies in the sale bills and the timing of the crop sales, leading him to conclude that Rs. 22,075 was unaccounted income disguised as agricultural income and rejected the rental income claim. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, accepting the assessee's explanation that the agricultural produce sold included crops from two financial years, supported by a certificate from the Agriculture Department. The CIT(A) found that the AO's additions were based on "assumptions and presumptions" without contrary material evidence. Upon review, it was found that the assessee's ownership of 40 bighas of land was undisputed, and Smt. Jyoti Devi confirmed the 'Batai' arrangement. The AO did not verify if similar income was reported in previous years. No evidence was presented to refute the assessee's claims about the agricultural and rental income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the additions were unjustified and based on assumptions, thus rejecting the Revenue's appeal. 2. Sustaining an Addition of Rs. 80,000 as Unexplained Cash Credit: The assessee's appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain an addition of Rs. 80,000 as unexplained cash credit in the name of Shri Lumba Ram. The AO had observed a credit of Rs. 80,000 from Shri Lumba Ram, who was claimed to have given two pay orders of Rs. 40,000 each. The AO questioned the creditworthiness of Shri Lumba Ram, noting a substantial time gap between the sale of agricultural produce and the issuance of pay orders, and the fact that Lumba Ram lived in a 'Kachha house' and owed money to the assessee's mother-in-law, Smt. Jyoti Devi. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, finding gaps in the dates of agricultural sales and pay orders, immediate withdrawals of deposits, and doubting Lumba Ram's capacity to lend Rs. 80,000 without charging interest. The assessee provided an affidavit from Shri Lumba Ram confirming the loan and repayment by cheques, along with sale bills of agricultural produce. The Tribunal reviewed the evidence, including Lumba Ram's statement of owning 175 bighas of land and substantial agricultural income. The Tribunal found that the identity of the creditor was established, and the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction were sufficiently proven. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted a previous loan transaction between the assessee and Lumba Ram as genuine. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition, as the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleted the addition, thus allowing the assessee's appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal, upholding the deletion of the additions of Rs. 22,075 and Rs. 4,000, and deleting the addition of Rs. 80,000 as unexplained cash credit.
|
