2022 (2) TMI 571 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained bank deposits - Seeking full relief as the CIT(A) has allowed only partial relief to the assessee is that the money was received through banking channels - HELD THAT - While allowing relief to the assessee the learned CIT(A) did not consider the findings of the AO and allowed substantial relief of ₹ 10 lac just by holding that the assessee had received the payments through banking channels. None of the findings of the Assessing Officer have been negated by CIT(A) nor before us the counsel has filed any evidence in the form of paper book regarding the genuineness of receipt of agriculture income and other documentary evidence to justify agricultural income. Therefore, no justification in the appeal of the assessee on this issue. Accordingly, the addition sustained by CIT(A) is upheld and on this ground, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Unexplained cash deposit in the bank account - AO had noted in his order that such deposits were made in the bank account during the demonetization period. Still out of the total deposits, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 2,04,000/- only and the learned CIT(A) restricted the addition to ₹ 50,000/- only. I find that before learned CIT(A), it was submitted that there was cash in hand available as on 08/11/2016 amounting to ₹ 38,44,795/- out of which the assessee had made total deposits to the tune of ₹ 38,06,500/- which is less than the opening cash in hand and therefore, restricting the addition to ₹ 50,000/- is not justified and hence it is deleted. In view of the above, the second grievance is decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of agriculture income denied by Assessing Officer.
2. Addition on account of deposits in bank challenged by the assessee.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Claim of agriculture income denied by Assessing Officer
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) pertaining to the assessment year 2017-2018. The legal heir of the deceased assessee was taken on record, and the arguments focused on the denial of certain agriculture income claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer had restricted the claim of agriculture income, which led to the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed relief to the assessee, prompting further appeal by the assessee. The counsel for the assessee argued that the entire amount of agriculture income was received through banking channels, and thus, full relief should have been granted. However, the Departmental Representative (D.R.) contended that the substantial relief granted was not justified, as the income claimed was deemed excessive based on local yield calculations and previous non-disclosure of agriculture income. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as no evidence was presented to substantiate the genuineness of the agriculture income, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on this issue.

Issue 2: Addition on account of deposits in bank challenged by the assessee
Regarding the addition of deposits in the bank, the Assessing Officer had made an addition out of total cash deposits during the demonetization period. The CIT(A) restricted the addition, considering the cash in hand available and the total deposits made. The ITAT found that the restriction of the addition to a certain amount was unjustified and deleted the additional amount imposed by the Assessing Officer. Despite the assessee raising multiple grounds, only the first ground related to the addition on merits was argued during the hearing. Consequently, the other grounds were dismissed, and the first ground was partly allowed. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed based on the decisions made on both issues.

In conclusion, the ITAT decision upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the denial of excess agriculture income claimed by the assessee but ruled in favor of the assessee in reducing the addition on account of deposits in the bank. The appeal was partly allowed based on these findings.