9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition of transfer expenses of ₹ 2,00,000/- on sale of agricultural land. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of cash credits amounting to ₹ 17,51,000/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that assessee filed return of income on 28.1.2014 declaring total income of ₹ 6,98,467/- and an agricultural income of ₹ 4.50,200/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') was framed vide order dated 16.1.2016.The A.O. while framing the assessment made addition in respect of capital gain of ₹ 75,35,438/-, income from other sources of ₹ 23,90,602/- and unexplained credit in bank account of ₹ 17,51,000/-. Hence, the A.O. after giving deduction under Chapter 16A assessed income at ₹ 97,40,840/-. The assessing officer also computed agricultural income at ₹ 3,00,000/- against the agricultural income claimed at ₹ 4,50,200/-. 3. Aggrieved by this action of the A.O., the assessee preferred an appeal befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 4) Source of Income - Agriculture, land revenue records produced PB 117 5) Repaid on 19.1.2013 PB 118 (back) 6) Cash was deposited before issue of cheque to assessee. He was agriculturist and his income was in cash only. He would explain his source. CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 366 ITR 217 (Raj.) 4. Shri Radheyshyam Patidar 3,00,000 1) Received by cheque. Bank pass book at pg.19 2) Confirmation PB 119 3) Source of income - Agriculture land revenue records produced PB 122- 123 4) Repaid on 7.1.2013 AO pg.19 5) Cash was deposited before issue of cheque to assessee. He was agriculturist and his income was in cash only. He would explain his source. Huge cash deposits before issue of cheque to assessee. He would explain his source. CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 366 ITR 217 (Raj.) 5 Shri Prahlad Patidar 4,50,000 1) Received by cheque. Bank pass book at pg.17 para (c) 2) Identity proof - Election ID. 3) Confirmation 4) Source of Income - Agriculture, Land revenue records produced. 5) Repaid on 19.1.2013 6) Cash was deposited before issue of cheque to assessee. He was agriculturist and his income was in cash only. He would explain his source. Huge cash deposits before issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cash deposits in her bank account. Therefore, A.O was justified in treating the said deposit as also not having been satisfactorily explained. 3 & 4 Shri Vishwas Patidar & Shri Radhyshyam Patidar: Shri Vishwas Patidar & Shri Radhyshyam Patidar are son and father and are related to the appellant. As noted by the A.O. here also the loan is stated to be out of agricultural income however the agricultural land holding is not commensurate with cash deposit in the accounts which are again of ₹ 49000/- or below that amount just prior to the loan given to the appellant. Shri Vishwas has no separate land in his name. Total land in the family in name of grand mother uncle etc. is only 16 Bighas and the details of the bank acounts in name of uncle and his family have not been given. In view of the above it is held that the loan from the above two creditors are also not satisfactorily explained. 5. Shri Prahlad Patidar: As in the case of the above 4 depositors in this case also there are cash deposits in the bank account of the depositor of ₹ 49000/- or below, just before giving the loan to the appellant. The deposits are not commensurate with the land holding which is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT (1969) 71 ITR 427 and the decisions of the Mumbai and Allahabad High Courts reported in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 and Sundar Lal Jain v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 316, respectively, contended, that section 68 of the Act can be invoked only, when, the books of account of the assessee show the cash entry and not otherwise. We are afraid, such a narrow and restricted interpretation of the provisions, contained in Section 68 was advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/assessee, cannot be accepted. If the liability shown in the said account which, is found to be bogus and in the absence of any plausible and reasonable explanation offered by the assessee, then, certainly, the amount can be added towards the income of assessee and brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. The reliance placed on the decisions, in our considered opinion, do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case and are distinguishable." 8.4 In the instant case also as pointed out above the appellant has submitted the copies of balance sheet ledger accounts bank book cash book etc at the time of assessment and the receipt is duly reflected in these accounts and hence A.O. was j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
