Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (5) TMI 623

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the facts that during the assessment proceedings the assessee has failed to produce any supporting evidence regarding the source of cash deposited in the bank." 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed the return declaring total income of Rs.1,05,543/-. As per the information collected by the Assessing Officer, he found that the assessee had accounts with Axis Bank at Vasant Kunj and Chandni Chowk. In both the accounts together, there was a cash deposit of Rs.19,51,940/-. During assessment proceedings, the assessee could not give any satisfactory explanation with regard to such cash deposits. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.19,51,940/-. Before the learned CIT(A), it was claimed by the assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... out that the balance was always in thousands and never touched the figure of Rs.1 lakh. Learned CIT(A) has already sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.1 lakh, therefore, even if the theory of peak credit is applied, the addition sustained by learned CIT(A) is quite sufficient. Moreover, the assessee has income from business as well as agricultural income. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused relevant material placed before us. We have gone through the assessee's bank accounts and found that the deposit and withdrawal from the bank accounts were in thousands only, sometimes even in hundreds. The deposit or withdrawal at a time has never touched even Rs.50,000/-. The bank balance is also in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessee was asked to give the proof of land holding and also the sale bills of agricultural produce. No such detail was produced. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.55,400/-. Learned CIT(A) deleted the addition. The total discussion in the order of learned CIT(A) relating to this ground reads as under:- "5. Ground No.2 :- The assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.55,400/- under the head agriculture income. 5.1 The facts emanating from the order of the AO and the submissions of the assessee is that the assessee has declared the agricultural income of Rs.55,400/- which has been rejected by the AO. 5.2 The assessee is in appeal against the order of the AO and it is submitted that the AO is not justified to reject .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 's appeal is allowed. ITA No.2632/Del/2013 :- 10. In this appeal by the Revenue, following grounds have been raised:- "1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the penalty of Rs.7,51,496/-. 2. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the penalty by ignoring the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has failed to produce any documentary evidence with respect to cash deposited in bank account. 3. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in deleting the penalty of Rs.7,51,496/- by ignoring the facts that during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has failed to give proof of land holding and sale bill of agricultural produce against the agricultural income claim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nalty appeal, he has arrived at the conclusion that on such lump sum estimated addition, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not warranted. We agree with him because the assessee has given an explanation with regard to bank deposit which is partly accepted by the CIT(A) and partly rejected on estimated basis. 13. However, with regard to agricultural income of Rs.55,400/-, we find that the assessee has not given any explanation either before the Assessing Officer or before the learned CIT(A) or before the ITAT. He has not furnished the details of agricultural holding, if any, by the assessee. Therefore, in the quantum appeal, we have reversed the finding of learned CIT(A) and sustained the addition of agricultural income of Rs.55,400/-. In o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates