2024 (5) TMI 821 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of unexplained income - cash deposits during the demonetization period - as per assessee sources for the deposits to be of agricultural income - HELD THAT - As the assessee is an agriculturist having source of income from agricultural produce and he has furnished the document showing the agriculture holding of 20 acres of land belongs to his wife and children. The assessee deposited the amount during the demonetization period which included proceeds from the sale of agricultural produce from his agricultural land and also from the agricultural land belongs to the family and also some deposits from past savings in the bank account. However AO has failed to take into consideration the above facts. Revenue has not been disputed about owning agriculture land by the assessee. It is quite fair to assume that the agricultural land must have yielded some produce and during the month of November the assessee likely received some amount from the sale of agriculture produce. In view of the above facts and considering the other factors that allow any individual to deposit for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in cash during the period of demonetization we deem it appropriate to restrict the addition to a sum of Rs. 2, 00, 000/-. Thus the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 arising from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT (A), Udaipur invoking proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue 1: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

The assessee contended that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was erroneous and unsustainable in law, alleging a violation of principles of natural justice due to failure of proper notice service u/s. 282 of the Act r.w.r 127 of the Rules. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition of unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, despite the appellant's explanation of agricultural income sources with supporting documents like patta pass books and sale bills of paddy. The appellant argued that the ld. CIT(A) incorrectly stated that no evidence was furnished during assessment or appellate proceedings.

Issue 2: Treatment of Cash Deposits as Unexplained Credits

During the demonetization period, cash deposits of Rs. 11,08,310/- were made by the assessee, leading to scrutiny under section 144 of the IT Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer treated all cash deposits as unexplained money u/s 69A, disregarding the appellant's explanation that the deposits were from agricultural income supported by patta pass books and sale bills of paddy. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition of unexplained income and taxing it under section 115BBE.

Judgment:

The ITAT Hyderabad considered the appellant's status as an agriculturist with income from agricultural produce, supported by documents showing ownership of 20 acres of agricultural land. It was noted that the cash deposits included proceeds from the sale of agricultural produce and past savings. The tribunal acknowledged the failure of the Assessing Officer to consider these facts and deemed it appropriate to restrict the addition to Rs. 2,00,000/-, granting a relief of Rs. 4,76,000/- to the assessee. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 4,76,000/- was deleted, and the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was confirmed, resulting in the partial allowance of the appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering the source of income and supporting documentation in cases of cash deposits, especially in the context of agricultural income. The tribunal's decision to grant relief to the assessee underscores the significance of proper assessment based on factual evidence and relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act.