2024 (5) TMI 1021 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained money u/s. 69A - deposits in bank account during demonetisation period - as per DR assessee was unable to produce external evidence in support of agricultural income shown - HELD THAT - We note that average agricultural income reported by assessee for previous three years is Rs. 3, 87, 667/-. We further note from the computation sheet of the AO that while computing total income the AO has himself accepted it as agricultural income and added. Once the AO has accepted agricultural income during the course of computing tax which is essential part of raising demand u/s 156 for completing the assessment then the AO cannot treat it as unexplained investment u/s. 69A . Accordingly we accept the plea of the assessee that income should be considered as agricultural income and apply normal tax rate as applicable. Since in this case the assessee had shown agriculture income of Rs. 15, 84, 000/- in his return of income out of which a sum of Rs. 7.00 Lakhs has been accepted by the ld. CIT (A) treating it as agriculture income. The balance amount of Rs 8, 84, 000/- is also to be considered as agriculture income as per our above observations. Assessee appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the assessment of agricultural income and cash deposits during the demonetization period, with a focus on whether the income declared by the assessee is genuine and supported by evidence.

Assessment of Agricultural Income:
The assessee filed a return of income declaring total income, including agricultural income. However, during scrutiny, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the declared agricultural income of Rs. 15,84,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the agricultural income as unexplained money u/s 69A and also questioned a cash deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs during demonetization. The CIT(Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, granting relief of Rs. 7 lakhs but confirming the balance amount of Rs. 8,84,000 as income. The ITAT, after considering submissions, noted that the AO had accepted the income as agricultural income during tax computation. Therefore, the ITAT held that the entire declared income should be considered as agricultural income and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Cash Deposits during Demonetization:
The dispute also involved cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The assessee submitted details of sales receipts for mangoes grown on agricultural land, but the revenue authorities did not accept the evidence. The ITAT considered the submissions, including the types of mangoes sold and the lack of external bills due to direct sales to the public. The ITAT noted that the AO was satisfied with the cash deposits and did not make any additions. Ultimately, the ITAT concluded that the main source of agricultural income was from mango sales, which should be treated as agricultural income subject to normal tax rates.

Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the declared income of Rs. 15,84,000 should be considered as agricultural income based on the AO's acceptance during tax computation. The ITAT held that the entire amount, including the balance of Rs. 8,84,000, should be treated as agricultural income, leading to the allowance of the appeal.