9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 290 - AT - Income TaxUndisclosed income of the assessee - bogus sale of agricultural produce - preponderance of probability theory - as per revenue assessee has coloured the story of sale of agricultural produced - AR vehemently argued before us that based on the information placed on record, it is not under dispute that the assessee is having the only source of income and that is agricultural income. Even on the same set of evidence the ld. AO has partly considered as income of the assessee - While making the addition the ld. AO recorded statement of Mr. Pappu, who handles the affairs of his agricultural land on sharing basis HELD THAT - During the course of assessment proceedings, it is very much clear that the assessee has his son and his relative (Buwa) holding 50 bighas of agricultural land and the assessee is having facility for storage of agricultural produce. Even the Krushi Upaj Mandli based on the set of facts placed on record has not lodged any compliant for enquiry. Considering all these set of facts merely invoices which are not of registered firm or a person and having not paid agricultural cess, the same cannot be considered as non genuine. In support of the contention our attention was invited to the various judgement of Co-ordinate Bench cited by ld. AR of the assessee. As decided in Shri Chaudhary Mange Ram Panwar 2023 (6) TMI 1129 - ITAT DEHRADUN preponderance of probability theory would go in favour of the assessee in the instant case. The predominant income available with the assessee is only the agricultural income. No other source of income is brought on record by learned Assessing officer and it is not in dispute that the assessee is not engaged in any business or profession. The source of income in any manner whatsoever could only emanate from agricultural income. Hence, the overall explanation given by the assessee for explaining the cash deposits as emanating out of the sale of car and agricultural receipts need to be accepted. No other source available with the assessee which would have enabled him to earn income. Thus we are of the considered view that the addition made by the ld. AO in the case of the assessee is directed to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal 2. Classification of Income as Agricultural Income 3. Applicability of Section 69A and Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act 4. Validity of Agricultural Income Receipts 5. Preponderance of Probability Theory Summary: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The Bench observed a delay of 50 days in filing the appeal. The assessee attributed this delay to a misunderstanding regarding the necessity of obtaining a certified copy of the order. The Bench found this explanation reasonable and condoned the delay, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC). Classification of Income as Agricultural Income: The assessee contended that the income in question was agricultural income. The authorities below failed to properly consider the classification of income and relied on mechanical reasoning without proper application of mind. The assessee argued that the land in question was cultivative and capable of generating agricultural income, which was the predominant source of income. Applicability of Section 69A and Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act: The AO added Rs. 10,75,000 to the assessee's income u/s 69A, deeming it unexplained money. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, applying the enhanced tax rate of 60% u/s 115BBE, as per the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment Act), 2016, which was applicable for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal found the application of Section 69A justified as the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash deposits. Validity of Agricultural Income Receipts: The AO disbelieved the agricultural income receipts, noting that the Krishi Upaj Mandi did not recognize the firm issuing the bills and no cess was collected. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided evidence of agricultural activities and land ownership. The Tribunal found the AO's reliance on hearsay and the non-payment of cess insufficient to discredit the agricultural income receipts. Preponderance of Probability Theory: The Tribunal applied the preponderance of probability theory, noting that the assessee's only source of income was agricultural. The AO did not establish any other source of income. The Tribunal referenced similar decisions by Coordinate Benches, which supported the acceptance of agricultural income as the source of cash deposits. Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 10,75,000 made by the AO, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the predominant source of income and the evidence provided by the assessee.
|
