9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1082X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no cash flow statement was filed by the assessee. We do not find any merit in the same also. It is a fact on record that the father of the assessee was an agriculturists who had sold the agricultural land measuring 47 kanal 10 marla during the impugned year and 32 kanal in the preceding year, which is evidenced by the copy of sale deed filed. Therefore, the father of the assessee, till the preceding year was in possession of at least approximately 82 kanal of land. The amount of ₹ 4,65,000/- representing savings from his agricultural income from the said lands does not appear to be abnormally large amount. The insistence of the CIT(A) on the cash flow statement we find is unwarranted and may not be feasible also considering that the father of the assessee was illiterate agriculturist and the CIT(A) could very well have verified the correctness of the statement on the basis of the quantum of land in the possession of the father and the average agricultural produce therefrom. We, therefore, find that the basis given by the CIT(A) for rejecting the explanation of the assessee vis-a-vis the source of cash deposited to the extent of ₹ 19,17,000/- does not stand the test of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d made addition of ₹ 60,40,780/- being cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee maintained with Axis Bank, Jagraon on account of the source of the same remaining unexplained. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted the same to ₹ 19,17,000/- deleting the balance on considering the submissions made by the assessee along with additional evidences filed to substantiate the same. Before us, the assessee has come in appeal against the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) of ₹ 19,17,000/-. 4. During the course of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that it had been explained to the ld. CIT(A) that the source of the cash deposits was the money received from his father and out of his own savings H of ₹ 34,000/-and it had been explained to the ld.CIT(A) also that the source of the same with the father was the money he got from selling his agricultural land, his past savings and money taken on loan by him. Our attention was drawn to the detail produced before the ld. CIT(A) explaining the-source of ₹ 60 lac with the father of the assessee Shri Jaspal Singh as reproduced on pages 3 and 4 of the order as under: Sourc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gift to his son to the extent of ₹ 14,18,000/-(9,45,000 + 4,73,000) and it was improbable for him to retain it for such a long period before gifting to his son. The ld. CIT(A) also did not accept the explanation of the assessee vis-a-vis the gift given by the father from his savings of ₹ 4,65,000/- and the assesses own savings deposited to the extent of ₹ 34,000/-. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that when his submissions and additional evidences had been forwarded to the AO he had given a clean chit to the assessee vide his Remand Report, dated 7.9.2017, stating that he had gone through the additional evidences and found the source of cash deposited by the assessee as true and correct. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that based on this report of the AO, the ld. CIT(A) had accepted the explanation regarding the gift received from his father sourced from sale of land during the year amounting to ₹ 31,47,000/- and loan take from one Shri Harjit Singh amounting to ₹ 9,70,000. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the ld.CIT(A) having so accepted part of the report of the AO, there was no reason for him to reject the balance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is agriculture income and how he kept all this income in cash with, also remains unexplained. 5.7 Although the AO, in his remand report, dated 07/09/20017, which has been directly sent to this office, in very casual manner, has given blanket certificate to the assessee, without going into detail of enquiries carried out by him w.r.t. each sale deed and agriculture income earned by father of assessee. I do not feel satisfied over the manner in which the AO, in two lines without giving reason of his satisfaction, has certified additional evidence filed u/s 46A, without giving documentary evidence of any detailed enquiries by him, during remand proceedings, the AO was also called to attend the appellate proceedings, vide various letters issued by this office, with copies marked to joint commissioner of income tax, Range Moga, however no compliance ever since last one year have been made by AO. 5.8 However in the interest of justice, since the father of assessee, Sh. Jaspal Singh, has sold his agricultural land, during the year, regarding which direct nexus could be seen, between sale proceeds and cash deposited by assessee, therefore the same is accepted. However reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uineness of the same Considering the fact that the source of the amount with the donor has not been doubted, nor has the Revenue pointed out or brought on record any fact showing the usage of the said amount by the donor prior to gifting, we do not see any reason to hold the said explanation improbable and we find the same acceptable. 9. As far the savings made from agricultural income, the ld. CIT(A) we find had rejected the explanation stating that no cash flow statement was filed by the assessee. We do not find any merit in the same also. It is a fact on record that the father of the assessee was an agriculturists who had sold the agricultural land measuring 47 kanal 10 marla during the impugned year and 32 kanal in the preceding year, which is evidenced by the copy of sale deed filed. Therefore, the father of the assessee, till the preceding year was in possession of at least approximately 82 kanal of land. The amount of ₹ 4,65,000/- representing savings from his agricultural income from the said lands does not appear to be abnormally large amount. The insistence of the CIT(A) on the cash flow statement we find is unwarranted and may not be feasible also consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
