9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its of Rs. 4,50,000/-; agricultural expenditure, being 40% of the agricultural income, for the period October, 2013 to December, 2015; and household expenses of Rs. 6,75,000/- @ Rs. 25,000/- per month for 27 months. The assessee has given details of the total cash withdrawal and cash agricultural income. We find that apart from living expense of Rs. 25,000/- per month, the assessee has not shown any expense such as medical expenses, expenses for various social and family functions, educational expenses, travelling expenses and other miscellaneous expenses. Therefore, the expenses shown by the assessee at Rs. 25,000/- per month is on the lower side and in our view Rs. 50,000/- would be the reasonable monthly expense. Therefore, the personal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961 (in short, the Act ) dated 29.12.2023 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, Ld. CIT(A) ] for the assessment year (AY) 2017- 18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in law and in facts, in considering the cash deposit as un-explained cash deposits. 2. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in applying provision of Section 115BBE. 3. I pray to your to allow to add, edit or delete any of the ground of appeal during hearing. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a farmer and is having joint bank accounts with her husband, Shri Arvind Lad. All family members of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to explain as to why cash deposit of Rs. 21,00,000/- be not added to the total income. After considering the reply, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee failed to give satisfactory explanation as to why cash was withdrawn from the bank in petty amounts from 01.01.2016 till the period of demonetization despite having substantial amount cash in hand. Frequent withdrawal by the assessee clearly shows that cash was not actually available with the assessee. Further, no household withdrawals were shown by the assessee. The assessee has also not shown any expenditure in respect of the agricultural income shown by her. Since, the explanation of the assessee was not satisfactory, Assessing Officer added Rs. 21,00,00/- to the total income and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- out of the deposit of Rs. 19,00,000/- in the bank accounts hold by her in individual capacity and in joint name with the appellant being the first account holder. Addition of the balance amount of cash deposits of Rs. 10,50,000/- was upheld. 6. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) stated that the assessee and her husband are farmers and they had only agricultural income during the year under consideration. The copy of agricultural income is given at page nos. 30 to 40 of the paper book. The detail of land held is given page nos.42 to 46 of paper book. It is further stated that the assessee and her husband deposited Rs. 21,00,000/- during demo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at neither the assessee nor her husband have purchased any single asset from October, 2013 to November, 2016. It is further stated that there was not a single bank in the village till 16.03.2019. Therefore, during the period under consideration accounts were maintained at bank branches which were 10 kilometres away from the village. Since, no bank account was in the village, the small amounts were withdrawn while travelling out of the home village. This is clear from the fact that cash withdrawals have been made while travelling to Surat which is nearly 45 kilometres away from the village. It is further argued that provisions of section 115BBE of the Act was enacted on 15.12.2016 and therefore tax rate applied by the Assessing Officer on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 6,06,061/- as against the claim of opening balance of Rs. 12,80,000/-. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs. 6,73,939/- is sustained and balance is deleted. Hence, ground no.1 is raised by the assesse is partly allowed. 11. Ground no.2 pertains to application of provisions of section 115BBE of the Act on the impugned addition. 12. The Ld. AR has submitted that provisions of section 115BBE of the Act was enacted on 15.12.2016 and hence cannot be applied for the year under consideration. The Ld. AR has relied on various decisions which are at page nos. 78 to 101 of the paper book, viz: (i) Om Prakash Nahar vs. ITO, ITA No. 960/Del/2021 (Del Trib.), (ii) Samir Shantilal Mehta vs. ACIT, ITA No. 42/SRT/2022 (Surat Trib.), (iii) ITAT, Indor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
