9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim of appellant that agricultural income legally earned by them was given up in favour of the appellant. The assessee has also not furnished any details of the ITR and other supporting evidences to show that the income of his father was diverted to him. He has not even given the affidavit or confirmation of his father in support of such claim. Therefore, the explanation of the assessee that the entire agricultural income belongs to him and to none others is not acceptable. Be that as it may, the fact that assessee is an agriculturist and that he was not having any other source of income cannot be denied in the face of various details and evidences given by him. It has accepted the contention of the assessee that he had deposited cash in the bank account out of agricultural income and out of earlier cash withdrawals from the bank (i.e., unused cash out of the cash withdrawn from bank of assessee). The ratio of above decision is applicable to the present case. We have already held that explanation regarding agricultural income of Rs. 2,24,000/- out of claim of Rs. 9,24,000/- is not acceptable. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 2,24,00/- is sustained and remaining amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has made cash deposit of Rs. 15,09,000/- in the Bank of Baroda and Rs. 2,00,000/- in HDFC Bank Ltd., during FY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assessee u/s 133(6) of the Act on 04.03.2019 to submit relevant details and documents to show the source of deposits of cash, but the assessee failed to comply. The Assessing Officer observed that the transactions amounting to Rs. 17,09,000/- is assessee s undisclosed and unexplained income which has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. The assessee s case was reopened by the Assessing Officer on 26.03.2019 and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2019 which was duly served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 06.06.2019 showing total income of Rs. 58,580/- under the head income from short term capital gain (STCG) and income from other sources . The AO again issued a notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act on 23.08.2019 along with the reasons for reopening the case of the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee submitted a letter dated 28.08.2019, which was found to be not satisfactory by the AO. The assessee had stated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for his comments. The remand report of the AO is at para-5 (pages 5-8) of the order of Ld.CIT(A). The AO objected to the admission of the additional ground and additional evidence. The AO stated that the claim of the assessee regarding cash-in-hand and cash deposits cannot be accepted because no return of income was filed for AY 2011-12. The assessee has also not submitted copy of the cash book, bank book with description of various entries, income and expenditure statement on account of agricultural income, status of filing of return of his father etc. The AO further stated that in 7/12 abstract, the name of six other persons are appearing apart from assessee. The factum of cash deposits cannot be accepted because assessee filed ITR-2 for AY 2011-12, which has no column for cash balance . Further, assessee has also did not furnish the details of his father, such as bank account, cash book, capital account etc. In view of these facts, the AO requested that the explanation of the assessee should be rejected and the addition made by the AO should be upheld. The remand report of the AO was forwarded to the assessee for its rejoinder. The assessee replied that the evidences submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition. 6. After considering the submission of the assessee and remand reports of AO, the Ld.CIT(A) has agreed with the finding of AO in the assessment order as well as remand report that From-7/12 has the name of the father of assessee but appellant failed to furnish the details of his father such as status of filing of ITR, bank statement, cash book, capital account and balance-sheet. Hence, the authenticity of claim of agricultural income as the source of cash deposit could not be demonstrated. Further, no evidence of the income and expenditure statement, copies of bills and vouchers of agricultural related expenditure like seed, fertilizer, pesticides, labour charges, water bill, electricity expenses, processing cost, land cess, other taxes etc. could be furnished by the assessee to examine the claim of agricultural activities. Even if the claim of the assessee regarding submission of the details in the e-filing portal is accepted, then also the submission was deficient and it could not prove the claim of agricultural income. For such a view, the Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decisions in the cases of Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT 115 taxmann.com 38 (All), Ravinder Kumar vs. ITO [2020] 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate specifying cash withdrawals of Rs. 4,00,000/-, Rs. 5,95,000/-, Rs. 38,000/-, Rs. 27,000/- and Rs. 8,80,000/- on 03.06.2011, 04.06.2011, 09.06.2011, 10.06.2011 and 07.10.2011 are specified. He has also submitted the bank statement of Bank of Baroda for self and his father at pages 22 to 25 of the paper book. The summary of cash deposits and cash withdrawals from the bank is given at pages 26-28 of the paper book. It is seen from such details that the assessee had closing cash-in-hand as on 31.03.2011 at Rs. 14,76,175/- and Rs. 18,18,88,375/- at on 31.03.2012. The Ld. AR has also given assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 12.10.2018, wherein cash deposit amounting to Rs. 11,79,325/- has been accepted by the AO Ward-3(1)(1), Surat. The appellant has also submitted bank certificate of HDFC Bank Ltd., and bank statement for FY 201-11 to support cash withdrawals of Rs. 5,90,000/-, Rs. 9,75,000/-, Rs. 8,96,500/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 70,000/- on various dates from 18.05.2010 to 31.01.2011 respectively. In view of the details, the Ld. AR submits that the addition made by the AO and upheld by the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified and such addition is required to be quashed. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me cannot be denied in the face of various details and evidences given by him. We find that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 11,79,2325/- in AY 2011-12, which was accepted by the Department in the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 12.10.2018 passed by ITO Ward-3(1)(1), Surat. The assessee has also given bank statement and summary of cash withdrawals from HDFC Bank Ltd.,, wherein the closing balance as on 31.03.2011 was at Rs. 14,76,175/-. As per bank certificate issued for FY 2010- 11, the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 25,81,500/- (AY 2011-12). Similarly, he had withdrawn Rs. 19,40,000/- in the FY 2011-12 (AY 2012-13). So the explanation regarding cash withdrawal of the assessee is duly supported by bank certificate and hence accepted. However, the claim that the whole agricultural income of his father and other family members was in the possession of assessee is not acceptable. Therefore, agricultural income Rs. 9,24,000/- claimed by the assessee cannot be accepted in full and share of assessee at best could be allowed to the extent of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The balance Rs. 2,24,000/ claimed as agricultural income is not accepted. The other explanation of the assessee regarding cash deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
