9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 10,00,500/- for cash deposited in bank without appreciating the evidences of Gift received, income from other sources and other receipt duly shown in Return of Income. The addition of Rs. 10,00,500/- should therefore be deleted. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,33,020/- for Agriculture Income and cash deposited Rs. 10,00,500/- thereby making the double addition to the extent of Rs. 8,33,020/- by disallowance of Agriculture Income and deposit of cash. The telescoping benefit to the extent of Rs. 8,33,020/- should be allowed. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in charging Tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act on cash deposited and disallowance of Agriculture Income without appreciating the satisfactory explanation on source of cash deposited and Agriculture Income. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, modify, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal before hearing." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 05/12/2017 declaring income of Rs. 6,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is on 17/11/2016 of Rs. 25,480/-. There is no receipt after 17/11/2016. For subsequent financial year, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 4,19,508/- and Rs. 3,31,906/- for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. On the basis of such observation, the Assessing Officer held that net agricultural income shown by assessee is not genuine and added the agricultural income of Rs. 8,33,020/- as income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 5. For other issue that of cash deposit during demonetization period, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee claimed a gift of Rs. 3.50 lacs and rent from sound system of Rs. 5,28,850/- and other receipts. The Assessing Officer recorded that no proof of gift was furnished. Further, no rental income of sound system was shown by the assessee before 25/07/2016 and after 24/10/2016. No evidence of such business is furnished. There was other discrepancies in the cash book for various years, accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 10,00,500/-. 6. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed his detaile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee has not shown rental income of sound system after 24/10/2016 and no evidence of such business was furnished by assessee. The assessee has filed copy of gift deed executed by sister of his mother. There is no reference as to why gift was given to assessee and source of gift by donor is not known. How the donor has kept such huge amount is a big question. The assessee is trying to give colour for the cash deposit during demonetization period by way of gift and rent of sound system and other receipts. As per Assessing Officer, there was negative balance as on 13/11/2016 after cash deposit in bank, thus, the source of cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,500/- is not genuine and upheld the action of Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) also upheld the action of Assessing Officer in taxing such addition under Section 115BBE of the Act by taking a view that the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposit during demonetization period and genuineness of agricultural income. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 9. I have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultural income of two assessment years, the higher of agricultural income is Rs. 4,19,508/- for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has furnished all sales bills of vegetable items grown in agricultural land on spot sales. Entire agricultural income be allowed and additions sustained by ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 11. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that when the assessee does of the Act own agricultural land, there is no question of any agricultural income. All the contentions of assessee was considered by the lower authorities. The assessee failed to prove either source of agricultural income or source of cash deposit. The alleged gift deed filed by assessee was not furnished before the Assessing Officer for proper verification. All the plea raised by assessee on both the additions are nothing but imagination of afterthought story. The assessee deserve no relief. 12. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. Ground No.1 relates to the disallowing agriculture income to the extent of Rs. 501,114/-. I find that the assessing officer disallowed the entire agriculture income by taking view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neither made any investigation of fact before discarding the gift not sought any remand report from the assessing officer. And as such the evidence in the form of gift deed was discarded without bringing any evidence against such evidence. Thus, I accept the gift of Rs. 3.50 lakh as genuine. So far as other remaining receipt of Rs. 1,21,650/- and receipt of Sound system is concerned I find that CBDT in its instruction No. 3/2017 [F.NO.225/100/2017/ITA-II], Dated 21-2-2017, has issued standard operating procedure (SOP) that cash deposits up to Rs. 2,50,000/- may be accepted in case of individual, thus, by giving benefit of the above circular, hence, the addition to the extent of Rs. 2,50,000/- is also deleted from disallowance of Rs.1,21,650/- and Rs. 5,28,850/-. Thus, the assessee is allowed total relief of Rs. 3.50 lakhs and Rs. 2.50 lakhs against the total addition of Rs. 10,00,500/-. However, on remaining addition of Rs. 4,00,500/- is concern, I concurred with the finding of ld CIT(A) that no such rental income was shown by assessee prior to 25.07.2016 and after 24.10.2016 and there were discrepancies in the cash book. In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
