9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee on Batai (crop-sharing) and the agricultural income was earned from such agricultural land. It was also submitted that the assessee also derived rent of Rs. 4,000 for giving land for pasture (cattle grazing). However, the AO noted that sale bills of agricultural produce did not indicate the name of the person from whom such produce had been purchased. He also noted that Raida crop was not grown in the months of January and February and, therefore, no sale thereof was possible during these months as shown in the bills. Considering the extent of land owned by the assessee and possible crop grown for one year, the AO accepted part of agricultural income and held that the amount of Rs. 22,075 was not agricultural income of the assessee and the same represented unaccounted income of the assessee shown in the garb of agricultural income. He further rejected the assessee s submission in respect of rental income from giving land for use as pasture and made an addition of Rs. 4,000 on this account. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). It was contended before the CIT(A) that the AO has made both the additions on the basis of surmises and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the impugned additions for the reason that such additions were made on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). The same is upheld and all the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are rejected. 7. We now take up the assessee s appeal. The only effective issue raised in the assessee s appeal is that the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining an addition of Rs. 80,000 made on account of unexplained cash credit in the name of one Sri Lumba Ram. The facts, briefly stated are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed a credit of Rs. 80,000 in the name of one Shri Lumba Ram. He further observed that the assessee claimed to have received a sum of Rs. 40,000, each by way of two pay orders of bank. However, there was a substantial gap between the sale of produce and amounts given to the assessee. He further observed that the assessee had borrowed substantial amount from Smt. Jyoti Devi on which interest of Rs. 30,512 had been paid in the accounting year under reference. Still Shri Lumba Ram owed a sum of Rs. 1,10, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctorily the genuineness of the deposit in the name of Sh. Lumba Ram. There is an apparent gap in the date on which there was alleged sale of agricultural produce by Sh. Lumba Ram in Pali and the date on which Sh. Lumba Ram had allegedly purchased the bank draft/orders amounting to Rs. 80,000. From the perusal of the bank account it is seen there is an immediate withdrawal of the deposit made in such bank a/c. I also fail to understand that why Sh. Lumba Ram had not deposited the sale proceeds of agricultural produce in his bank a/c when he has maintained such a bank a/c. In my view, Shri Lumba Ram was not in a position to advance a sum of Rs. 80,000 to the appellant. Shri Lumba Ram failed to give reliable evidence that he had that much of amount on the date when he had purchased bank pay orders in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, I hold that the AO was justified in making this addition on account of unexplained deposit because appellant could only prove the identity of the depositor but the creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions with the depositor are not established. I, therefore, uphold the action of the AO." The assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in a case where the identity of a creditor is established and the creditor also affirmed having advanced the amount and the payment is made by crossed cheque, addition under s. 68 of the Act was not called for. (v) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom): Where the High Court has held that in a case where the assessee satisfies the AO as to the identity of the third party and furnishes evidence which would show that the entry is not fictitious, the initial burden can be said to have been discharged by the assessee. The assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of source of the credits in the hands of the creditor. (vi) Mansinghka Brothers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1983) 37 CTR (Raj) 19 : (1984) 147 ITR 361 (Raj): Where the High Court has held that while considering the assessability for applicability of any beneficial provision or interpretation of facts or inference to be drawn for facts, if two views are possible then that view should be taken which may be beneficial to the assessee. Thus, he contended that the order of the learned CIT(A) should be set aside and the impugned addition deleted. 10. The learned Departmental Representative, Shri D.R. Zal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maining Rs. 40,000 after two and half years. In reply to question No. 13, Shri Lumba Ram stated that he owned 175 bighas of land and in good season agricultural produce was about 150 bags. His statement also shows that he owns one tractor. He also confirmed regular transactions of deposits and borrowings with the family of the assessee. Page 9 of the paper book further shows that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had filed copies of bills and vouchers indicating substantial sale of agricultural produce. A copy of bank account of Shri Lumba Ram with Marwar Gramin Bank, Pali, is also at pp. 15 and 16 of the paper book. But the same shows that the amount in question was returned by the assessee by cheques which was deposited in his bank account. It is, no doubt, true that Shri Lumba Ram had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 from Smt. Jyoti Devi, mother-in-law of the assessee on interest for purchase of vehicle being used in dairy business. He also paid interest of Rs. 30,500 on the amount borrowed. In case of cash credit it is a trite law that the onus is on the assessee to establish identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
