9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these agriculturists were deposited in her bank account which deposit (cash credits) to the extent of Rs.15,07,900/- were not believed by the Assessing Authority as explained and the additions to the declared income were made in her hand under Section 68 of the Act to an extent of Rs.15,07,900/-. 3. The assessee produced the confirmation letters from the said four Agriculturists namely, Channa Shetty, Dhana Shetty, M R Ranga Setty and B V Chandru, for the refund of cash to the extent of Rs.4,50,000/- by each one of them and by M R Ranga Setty for Rs.4,05,000/-, which entire amount received by the assessee in the relevant assessment year 2010-11 was deposited by the assessee in her bank account. Disbelieving the confirmations given in writing by these Agriculturists, the Assessing Authority added back the said deposit in the Bank Account of assessee to an extent of Rs.15,07,900/- in the declared income of the assessee. 4. The observations made in pars 3.2 to 3.4 of the Assessment Order dated 18.02.2013 are quoted below for ready reference: "3.2 As per confirmation letters, three persons hail from Hassan and one person from Coorg District. However, it is noticed from the confirma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been furnished by filing a memo dated 30.06.2016 in this Court also stating the details of cheques, which are quoted below for ready reference: Date Particulars Cheque No Amount withdrawn (Dr.) 09.06.07 To self 995104 3,30,000-00 27.10.07 To self 995106 5,00,000-00 14.03.09 To self 995110 10,00,000-00 Total 18,30,000-00 The said advance amount given to the agriculturists were reflected in the returns filed by the assessee for the previous assessment years as well as the refund of which was deposited by her in the bank account in the present assessment year. The CIT (Appeals)-II, Bengaluru, therefore, allowed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 01.05.2014 and set aside the impugned assessment order with the following observations: "3.3 I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions and also the reasons given by the AO in the assessment order for the addition made to the appellant's declared income. During the assessment proceedings, the AO asked the appellant to furnish details regarding the cash deposits amounting to Rs.15,07,900/- in her bank account. The appellant, in reply, explained that she had given advances for purchase of agricultu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the withdrawals of Rs.10 lakhs made from the bank on 14/3/2009 and, therefore, to the extent of the said amount the assessee has proved at least the source of the deposit in the bank even if the explanation of the assessee was not acceptable because of the enquiry conducted by the AO. As far as remaining amount of Rs.5,07,900/-, the CIT(A) has also not given any details of the bank withdrawals and, therefore, in the absence of any record furnished by the parties before us, we find that the assessee failed to explain the source of remaining Rs.5,07,900/- deposit in the bank account. Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances, we confirm the addition to the extent of Rs.5,07,900/- made by the AO. Revenue has succeeded in part." 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant-assessee Mr.S A Padmanabha submitted before this Court that the findings given by the learned Tribunal are perverse and without any reason, the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the explanation furnished by the assessee was only for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and not for the entire sum of Rs.15,07,900/-. He has further submitted that the Assessing Authority never examined the four agriculturists in question na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the refunds of advances given by the Assessee to the Agriculturists with whom the Agreement of purchase of agricultural lands failed and consequently, the advances made to them were returned back to the assessee during the current year. 11. We do not find any justification for upholding the additions under Section 68 of the Act to an extent of Rs.5,07,900/- by the Tribunal. In our opinion, learned CIT (Appeals)-II, Bengaluru, had rightly looked into the entire relevant evidence and set aside the additions made under Section 68 of the Act. 12. As far as the nature of enquiry conducted by the Assessing Authority is concerned, we find that it has left much to the guess work. The confirmations in writing produced by the Agriculturists could not have been rejected by the Assessing Authority without their evidence being recorded by the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority has the power of a Civil Court by virtue of Section 131 of the Act. Therefore, he could very well summon these Agriculturists and after their examination, he could have believed or discarded the evidence given by them. Misplaced apprehension of the Assessing Authority that since confirmations were in the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
