9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. I am conscious of the fact that case of assessee was related to assessment year 2007-08 and the Ld. CIT(A) passed the appellate order on 20.12.2017. However, from number of trees the estimation of yields of fruits could be easily got estimated. No such exercise was conducted before making any enhancement. CIT(A) relied on the pattern of cash deposits by taking view that there was substantial fluctuation instead of examining the fact that agricultural produce depends on various factors like weather, wind temperature in the season or natural calamities etc. In absence of adverse evidence against furnishing by assessee, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making enhancement. Decided in favour of assessee. Addition was made for want of evidence - As assessee has furnished affidavits of contractors / purchaser before ld CIT(A). They have specified in their affidavit that as and such payments were made to the assessee. No doubt that such affidavit was sworn in the month of July, 2017, but still the assessing officer has not directed the assessee to produce such person for their cross examination. However, assessee, has agreed for such addition and no contrary fact is shown additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice to the assessee on 24.10.2016 to substantiate such deposits in his bank account. The contents of show cause notice is reproduced in para-4 of assessment order. In the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer recorded that he has got information about cash deposits of Rs.21,55,000/- in the saving bank account during the period of 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 asked to explain as to why such deposit should not have been treated as unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer recorded that in response to such notice, the assessee filed his reply dated 30.03.2016 and provided details of sales bills, copy of extract of Form-7/12 of the land record of the assessee, confirmation of purchases of fruits. On verification of such details, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has not provided any evidence of sales of Rs.6,02,894/- to Sheikh Mahammad Kallu, retail sundry sale of mango and chikko and miscellaneous vegetable income. In absence of such evidence, the Assessing Officer took his view that assessee could not substantiate the genuineness of income of Rs.6,02,894/- and the same was added to the income of assessee. 4. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertaining to all parties from whom sales receipt in cash has been claimed. Ongoing through such additional evidence, it is seen that assessee has filed only affidavit of Mahammad Kallu Serali Pathan and Raim Basirbhai Munsi who have made payment of Rs.3,65,000/- and Rs.16,11,000/- respectively. The assessee has not produced any agreement for doing such agricultural activities on his land. The assessee has not produced any sales bills, vouchers expense and proof of agriculture produce. The Talati-cum-Mantri has certified annual income of the assessee on presumptive basis. The assessee could not substantiate the genuineness of his income. On confirmation letter, in the form of affidavit, the assessing officer reported that the purchaser s parties who have made payment to assessee are not assessed to income tax or even do not have the PAN. On the basis of such report the Assessing Officer supported the addition of Rs.6,02,894/-. 6. The assessee filed his rejoinder to the remand report of Assessing Officer, vide rejoinder dated 16.08.2017, wherein assessee reiterated his earlier submission. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that during the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash deposits for A.Y Rs.100/- and for A.Y. 2006-07 it was 0 . It was noted by ld CIT(A) that this pattern of substantial fluctuation in cash deposits from year-to-year, do not in any way, indicate earning of agricultural income. Anand and Navratan are share broker as explained by assessee. In current financial year 2007- 08, the assessee suffered loss of Rs.17,72,965/- in Future and Option (F O) trading. The assessee was directed to furnish F O expense of cash deposits by the assessee and payment made to Anand and Navratan. On perusal of such details, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that deposits were made, whenever the payments were required for F O transactions, losses and margins, the assessee deposited cash in his bank account. On considering cash deposits, the ld CIT(A) was of the view that such patterns of deposits clearly indicate that assessees claim of agricultural income is an eyewash and the affidavit evidence is also an afterthough story. 9. On the basis of such observation, the Ld. CIT(A) issued notice for enhancement vide his notice dated 04.10.2017. The contents of such show cause notice was recorded on pages 16-18 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that assessee merely making stress of his claim of earning agricultural income whereas facts and circumstances of the present case discussed disprove the agricultural income by substantial verification in quantum from year-to-year as well as evidence of F O transaction made by assessee. The assessee was engaged in F O transaction to prove profit of Rs.66,73,666/- and loss of Rs.84,46,631/- were shown from Navratan and Anand Rathi during the period under consideration, whereas no return of income was filed by assessee. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the amount of cash deposits of Rs.21,55,000/- cannot be accepted as derived out of agricultural income. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) enhanced the undisclosed income from Rs.6,02,894/- to Rs.21,55,000/-. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 12. I have heard the submission of Ld. AR for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Sr-DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. The ld.AR for the assessee submits that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,02,894/- by taking view that assessee has not furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no direction of issuing fruits bills and receipt of various payments as per practice in other business activities. The ld. AR for the assessee prayed to delete the entire additions including the enhancement made by ld. CIT(A). 14. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that most of the cash deposits made in bank account assessee was noted in first second week of October, 2007 whereas the mango season ending in the months of May-June respectively. The assessee has transferred immediately in the name of Anand and Navratan who are broker of assessee in F O transaction. The summary of cash deposits from whom the assessee himself produce the receipt reveals that there is substantial fluctuation in cash deposits from year-to-year do not indicate the real picture of earning of agricultural income. The Ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the evidence enhanced in the income of assessee. 15. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I have also perused all the documentary evidences filed by the assessee on record. I find that the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
