9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts, the creditworthiness of the loan giver Late Ishwarbhai D. Patel has been established. The transactions in question are through banking channels wherein the loan has been received by the assessee through banking channels and even repaid subsequently through banking channels which proves the genuineness of the transaction. Hence, CIT(A) therefore deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 68 correctly - Decided in favour of assessee. Agriculture income - assessee has failed to submit, any sales bill and any other evidences to prove genuineness of the transactions - assessee received income from growing sugarcane, vegetables, mangoes, chickoos etc. The assessee had approximately 900 chickoo trees and 400 mango trees - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- The agricultural income offered by the assessee was accepted in scrutiny assessment of AY 2015-16 as evident from the copy of assessment order produced during the Appellate Proceedings. All these facts go to show that the assessee has agricultural land and is having agricultural income since several years which has been accepted by the Department. Having an agricultural income of Rs. 26,28,436/- for an agricultura ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to submit, any sales bill and any other evidences to prove genuineness of the transactions. 4. In addition to the ground no.3, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition to Rs. 16,02,000/- made on account of agriculture income claiming that the sums have been received from some ad hoc wholesaler who have not raised any sale bills and the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the wholesaler. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-4, ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that the AO may be restored to the above extent. 3. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue, relates to deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act. 4. Brief facts, as discernible from the orders of lower authorities are that assessee before us is an Individual and has filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 20.07.2017, declaring total income of Rs. 4,13,42,220/-. The notice u/s 143( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itworthiness of the person who had given the loan. 6. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) observed that assessee has repaid the loan in subsequent year and department has accepted this fact. Therefore, genuineness of the loan should not be doubted. Apart from this, the Commissioner of income Tax( Appeals) also noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted PAN number of the creditor, confirmation of the creditor, bank statement of the creditor and other required documents and written submission before the assessing officer and the assessing officer did not find any fault in these documents and evidences. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition. 7. Aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 8. The Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submitted that assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from one Mr. Ishwarbhai D Patel, Magob, Surat. The assessee was failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the said loa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubhai has acted as a conduit for transfer of amount of Rs. 1,42,72,860/- and has no credit worthiness does not hold good. The payment is made by Kesubhai Varotariya for purchase of property and not as a conduit to transfer funds. This justifies source of source of income/receipt from which the subject unsecured loan was given to the assessee. The AO could have very well reviewed Form 26AS of the loan giver for A.Y. 2017-18, which also contained said transaction, but AO has not examined the same. We note that documents and papers submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, justifies the identity, genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of loan giver. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: (a) CIT-I v. Patel Ramniklal Hirji [2014] 41 taxmann.com 493 (b) PCIT v. D H Enterprises [2016] 72 taxmann.com 91 (Gujarat) (c) CIT v. Dharamdev Finance (P.) Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmaan.com 395 (Gujarat) (d) CIT v. Orchid Industries (P.) Ltd. [2020] 116 taxmann.com 113 (SC) (e) Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj). 11. The ld CIT(A) noted that assessee had produced the confirmation before the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue. 12. In the result, ground No.1 and 2 raised by the revenue are dismissed. 13. Coming to ground Nos. 3 and 4 raised by the Revenue, which relate to deleting the addition of Rs. 16,02,000/- made by Assessing Officer on account of agriculture income. 14. Brief facts qua the issue are that these grounds raised by the Revenue, relate to treating part of agricultural income unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs. 16,02,000/-. Facts as per the order of authorities below are that assessing officer during the assessment proceedings observed that the assessee had claimed agricultural income of Rs. 26,28,436/-. Before the AO, the assessee had submitted the receipts for having given the 400 Mango and 900 Chickoo trees to the wholesalers for harvesting the produce for which the receipts were also produced, which the AO has reproduced on page 14 to 17 of the assessment order. The AO rejected the sale bills as they were not on stamp paper and without any agreement and without the description of number of trees etc. The AO concluded that the explanation filed by the assessee was not satisfactory as no evidences of land records showing ownership of such land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st 5 assessment years. The assessee has also given the details of agricultural land with 7/12 extracts before the AO and during the Appellate Proceedings. The total agricultural land holding is 30.52 acres having sugarcane, mango, Chickoo and vegetable cultivation in 5 different blocks. The agricultural income offered by the assessee was accepted in scrutiny assessment of AY 2015-16 as evident from the copy of assessment order produced during the Appellate Proceedings. All these facts go to show that the assessee has agricultural land and is having agricultural income since several years which has been accepted by the Department. Having an agricultural income of Rs. 26,28,436/- for an agricultural land of about 30 acres seems to be quite reasonable and possible. Therefore, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO of Rs. 16,02,000/-. We do not find any infirmity in the above findings of ld CIT(A).That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 19. In the result, the ground Nos. 3 and 4 raised by the Revenue, are dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
