9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read area is reasonable. Estimation of income - HELD THAT:- The decision relied upon by the assessee is distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied in the assessee s case. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. Hence, we direct the AO to estimate the income at ₹ 15,000/- per acre on 70% of the water spread area. The assessee s appeal on this ground is allowed partly. Unexplained cash deposits in the bank - assessee has taken the gold loan for carrying agricultural opearations and the gold loan was utilized for the said purpose - sale proceeds of the crops grown in the paddy field were said to have been deposited in the Bank account for repayment of the Bank loan, therefore, argued that the source stands explained, hence no addition is required to be made - HELD THAT:- The assessee has not produced any bills and vouchers with regard to the agricultural operations and the expenditure incurred. The assessee also did not give break-up of expenses incurred for cultivating the 10 acres of agricultural land. The assessee neither furnished the break-up of expenses nor produced the bills and vouchers. The assessee also did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rao, Judicial Member And Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR For the Respondent : Smt.Suman Malik, DR ORDER PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-12, Hyderabad vide Appeal No.10248/2017-18 dated 10.01.2018 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15. 2. Ground No.1 and 5 are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 3. Ground No.2 is related to the addition of ₹ 16,80,000 towards income from Pisiculture. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee has taken 124 acres of agricultural land on lease and cultivated the fish ponds. The AO found that the assessee had offered the income from fish ponds at ₹ 7,500/- per acre taking 70% of water spread area for cultivation leaving 30% of the area for bunds. The AO found that the assessee had declared to the bank that he has developed the fish ponds in the 90% of the water spread area, leaving 10% of the land for bunds and taken the bank loan of ₹ 1.00 crore for developing the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the AO estimated the income on 90% of the water spread area instead of 70% as per the guidelines issued by CBDT in Instruction No.5160 dated 19.10.1993. The AO relied on the submissions made by the assessee before bank authorities for the purpose of obtaining bank loan. No physical inspection was made by the AO or by the Income Tax authorities to find out the actual water spread area of the fish tanks and embankments. In the instant case, the assessee has taken 124 acres of land on lease for Pisciculture. The CBDT after considering the facts of the case held that 70% of the water spread area is reasonable. Therefore, we hold that for the purpose of estimation of income, considering 70% of the water spread area of 124 acres is reasonable and in consonance with the instructions issued by the CBDT. Except the letter given by the assessee to the bank, there was no other evidence brought on record by the AO by making physical inspection or any other evidence from the revenue authorities. This view is also supported by the order of this Tribunal in Krishna Fisheries supra. Therefore, we consider 70% of water spread area is reasonable. 8. The next issue in this ground is estimation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted agricultural income of ₹ 2,00,000/- in the return of income. Before the AO, the assessee explained that the assessee has taken gold loan of ₹ 14,17,500/- and spent for agricultural purposes and from the sale proceeds of the agricultural produce, the cash deposits were made to repay the loan. According to the assessee, the source of ₹ 14,17,500/- paid in to the bank account was relating to the sale proceeds of the agricultural produce. Not being convinced with the explanation of the assessee, the AO made the addition of ₹ 14,17,500 as unexplained and added back to the income. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is extracted which is made available in para No.8.3 which reads as under : 8.3. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant as well as theorder of the Assessing Officer. On verification of the bank account statement of the assessee with HDFC bank, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had deposited an amount of ₹ 4,67,500/- on 04-04- 2O1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for the purpose of making the deposit in the bank account. Therefore, argued that the AO has not considered the gross receipts from the agricultural activities and requested to consider the same, as explained and delete the addition. The Ld.AR further argued that the assessee had taken gold loan which was not brought in the books of accounts and the source is available for the assessee to make the deposit in the bank account. Accordingly, the Ld.AR submitted that both ways, the assessee is entitled for relief and requested to delete the addition. 12. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The assessee argued that the assessee owns agricultural land of 5 acres in his own name and 5 acres in the name of his wife totaling to 10 acres which was used by him for the purpose of cultivating the paddy. The assessee has taken the gold loan of ₹ 14,17,500/- for carrying agricultural opearations and the gold loan was utilized for the said purpose. The sale proceeds of the crops grown in the paddy field were said to have been deposited in the Bank account for repayme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f opening the bank account. The assessee has not furnished the actual date of taking the gold loan. The assessee also did not furnish the purpose of application of gold loan. The assessee being a business man, having fish ponds and liquor business, operating regular bank accounts and it is unbelievable to accept the contentions that cash was available intact. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the assessee has applied the bank loan for the purpose which was not explained and the same cannot be taken as a source for deposits made in the bank account. Accordingly, on this count also, the assessee fails. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground. 15. Ground No.4 is related to the addition of ₹ 10,38,064/- made by the AO towards unexplained cash deficit. During the appeal hearing, the AO found that there was cash deficit as per the books of accounts and the AO further observed that the assessee does not deposit the daily sales in the bank account. The assessee explained that there was sufficient cash balance out of agricultural operations and AO did not convince with the explanation offered by the assessee and made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
