9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd other documentary evidence to justify agricultural income. Therefore, no justification in the appeal of the assessee on this issue. Accordingly, the addition sustained by CIT(A) is upheld and on this ground, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Unexplained cash deposit in the bank account - AO had noted in his order that such deposits were made in the bank account during the demonetization period. Still out of the total deposits, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 2,04,000/- only and the learned CIT(A) restricted the addition to ₹ 50,000/- only. I find that before learned CIT(A), it was submitted that there was cash in hand available as on 08/11/2016 amounting to ₹ 38,44,795/- out of which the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the CIT(A) who again partly allowed relief to the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer further made certain additions on account of deposits in bank which again learned CIT(A) allowed partial relief and for rest of the addition, the assessee is in appeal. 3.1. Learned counsel for the assessee, regarding first grievance, submitted that the assessee had received payments on account of agriculture income through banking channels which the learned CIT(A), in his order, had admitted and therefore, he should have allowed full relief to the assessee as the entire amount was received through banking channels and it was not fair on the part of the learned CIT(A) to restrict the addition. sim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of cash in his bank accounts against which the Assessing Officer confirmed addition of ₹ 2,04,000/- only and learned CIT(A) has restricted the addition only to ₹ 50,000/-. Learned D. R. submitted that the order of learned CIT(A) is not correct and the only reason for not filing the appeal against the order of learned CIT(A) is that on the quantum of relief, the tax effect is below ₹ 50 lac. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it was argued that the appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed. 5. I have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. I find that the Assessing Officer, in his order, has recorded that the assessee had declared agriculture income to the extent of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the demonetization period. Still out of the total deposits, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 2,04,000/- only and the learned CIT(A) restricted the addition to ₹ 50,000/- only. I find that before learned CIT(A), it was submitted that there was cash in hand available as on 08/11/2016 amounting to ₹ 38,44,795/- out of which the assessee had made total deposits to the tune of ₹ 38,06,500/- which is less than the opening cash in hand and therefore, restricting the addition to ₹ 50,000/- is not justified and hence it is deleted. In view of the above, the second grievance is decided in favour of the assessee. 7. Though the assessee has taken a number of grounds but at the time of hearing only ground No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
