2020 (3) TMI 1016 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - cash payment made towards stamp duty - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer has made addition on account of cash payment made towards stamp duty - Commissioner (Appeals) accepting assessee s explanation with regard to the unsecured loan has restricted the addition. For explaining the source of ₹ 16,93,770, the learned Authorised Representative has submitted before us that an amount of ₹ 5 lakh was withdrawn from bank account on 3rd May 2013, and paid towards stamp duty on 6th May 2013. On a perusal of cash book extract submitted in the paper book, we find the aforesaid contention of the assessee to be correct. Therefore, we are of the view that a further amount of ₹ 5 lakh out of the addition sustained of ₹ 16,93,770, stood explained. Accordingly, the addition to the extent of ₹ 5 lakh deserves to be deleted. Balance amount of ₹ 11,93,770 - to explain the source of the aforesaid cash payment, the assessee has submitted that from the assessment stage itself it has been explained that the amount has come from agricultural income - As before us, except the 7/12 extract and some documents filed before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has not furnished any other evidence to prove actual carrying on of any agricultural activity or earning of agricultural income. Even, no material has been placed before us to show that the assessee had offered any agricultural income in the earlier or subsequent assessment years. If the assessee claims that it has earned agricultural income and part of the cash payment was made out of that, the burden is entirely on the assessee to prove such fact through proper documentary evidences. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to restore the issue relating to the balance cash payment of ₹ 11,93,770, to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, thereby, providing an opportunity to the assessee to furnish corroborative evidence to prove its claim of availability of agricultural income. AO must afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the issue. Appeal is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of ?19,93,770 under section 68 of the Act.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the addition made under section 68 of the Act. The dispute revolved around the source of cash payment of ?23,47,770 made by the assessee towards stamp duty. The Assessing Officer added this amount as unexplained cash credit, which the assessee contested before the first appellate authority.

Upon review, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the explanation regarding a loan received, reducing the addition by ?5,92,000. However, the claim of agricultural income amounting to ?16,92,770 was not accepted. The assessee argued that the source of cash payment was adequately explained, citing various sources including an opening cash balance, a loan, and a withdrawal from the bank account. The Departmental Authorities disagreed, leading to the appeal.

The Tribunal acknowledged the cash withdrawal from the bank account and its utilization for stamp duty payment, reducing the disputed amount by ?5 lakh. However, the remaining balance of ?11,93,770 attributed to agricultural income was not adequately substantiated. Despite the presentation of land holding details and financial records, the lack of concrete evidence supporting agricultural income led to the rejection of the claim. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further examination, emphasizing the necessity for the assessee to provide substantial proof of agricultural income to justify the cash payment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, deleting the addition of ?5 lakh while remanding the remaining balance of ?11,93,770 back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The decision highlighted the importance of furnishing conclusive documentary evidence to support claims of income sources, especially in cases of disputed cash payments.