9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,76,97,000/- made under u/s 69 without appreciating the factual matrix clearly brought out by the AO. 2. The Id.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,76,97,000/- without appreciating the fact that the source of huge cash deposit made in the bank account operated by assessee were not explained and the primary onus of proving the source were not discharged by the assessee, even though cash deposits in the bank accounts of family members were made by the assessee himself. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld ClT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,64,267/- made under u/s 69 without appreciating the factual matrix clearly brought out by the AO. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of unaccounted bank interest of Rs. 1,16,579/- made under u/s 69 without appreciating the factual matrix clearly brought out by the AO. 5. It is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be set-aside and that the order of the A.O. may be restored. Assessee's Appeal ITA No.2883/Ahd/2015/SRT: 4. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegation and stand of the AO. Before us also the ld. AR could not show us any documentary evidence supporting the fact of expending amounts on agriculture activity and for procurement of agriculture crop therefore, the appellant could not negate the allegations and contention of the AO. 7. From the relevant part of the first appellate order pg. 32 & 33, it is apparent that the ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and by observing three points viz. i) appellant had shown gross receipt of agricultural income of Rs. 9,36,713/- against which expenses of Rs. 3,83,200/- has been shown and has declared agricu7ltur4al income at Rs. 4,55,540/- in the return of income while as per income and expenditure account it was Rs. 5,56,513/- causing a difference of Rs. 1,00,973/- which is incorrect, secondly the claim of appellant of expenditure of Rs. 3,80,200/- has not been supported by any bill or vouchers thirdly appellant has not maintained any books of accounts to substantiate real quantum of agricultural income. With these observations, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by concluding that agricultural income has been i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be income earned from undisclosed sources and the AO was right in making addition of Rs. 2,76,97,000/- is made on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 10. The ld. DR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee without any basis and justified reason therefore, impugned order may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the AO. 11. Replying to the above, the ld. AR submitted that the AO ignored very vital facts and explanation of the assessee for making addition and the same was rightly adjudicated and appreciated by the ld. CIT(A) by considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. AR drew our attention towards pg. 31 of the first appellate order and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) rightly noted that the appellant being the mandate holder/power of attorney of all the account holders cannot be treated as real beneficiary owner of these accounts and consequently the cash deposits made into these alleged accounts cannot be held to be belonging to the appellant. The ld. AR submitted that it was the duty of the AO to make inquiries from those family members owing the bank accounts to which amounts were deposited and no such effor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uence the cash deposits made into all these accounts cannot be held to be belonging to the appellant. In case the appellant has to be treated as the real owner of cash deposits then sufficient material has to be brought on record that he has held all these accounts in fictitious owners. The assessing officer has recorded the statement of the appellant during the assessment proceedings and in which there is a categorical admission of the appellant that he is a merely mandate holder of all these accounts. The assessing officer is alleging and treating the appellant as the real owner without bringing anything on record any evidence that the persons / family members of the appellant in whose name these accounts stand are not in fact the real owner. It was the duty of the assessing officer to make necessary inquiries of all those members and brought forth the truth. From the assessment order it appears that no such effort has been made in this regard. The onus is on the assessing officer to prove that the appellant is the real owner because only he alleges that the appellant has routed his unaccounted income through these accounts. The other family members having these accounts has show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. DR even on the specific quarry from the Bench and in all fairness he accepted that the addition have been made in the hands of respective bank account holders to which impugned deposits were made by the assessee in the capacity of mandate holder of the accounts. 15. In this peculiar situation when the impugned deposits have been considered in the hands of respective account holders for making additions u/s. 68 of the Act then, the same amount cannot be added to the income of the assessee in the same AY 2011-12 on the same allegations and thus, we are inclined to hold that the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the entire amount of addition made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A) and hence, we uphold the same. Consequently, grounds No.1 & 2 of the Revenue being devoid of merits are dismissed. Ground No.3: 16. Apropos this ground, we have heard the arguments of both sides and carefully perused the relevant material placed on the record of the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that the Ld ClT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,64,267/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
