9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds of appeal: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not deleting the additions made by the AO. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in rejecting the claim of the appellant with regard to credit for agricultural income of Rs. 4,00,000/- for AY 2015-16 and Rs. 5,00,000/- for AY 2016-17 on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove the same without appreciating the fact that the appellant had filed returns of income for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 reflecting the said agricultural income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the AO has rightly arrived at the cash balance of Rs. 13,62,000/- without appreciating the fact that excess cash withdrawn from bank for the FY 2015-16 is Rs. 15,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -. The AO also accepted the claim of agricultural income of Rs. 1,10,250/-. However, the claim of the assessee with regard to the amount received from sale of Gold and savings out of agricultural income of AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 has not been allowed on the ground that the assessee could not file relevant evidences. To sum up, out of total cash deposits of Rs. 75,62,200/-, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 50,92,750/- and the balance amount of cash deposit of Rs. 24,69,450/- has been treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income generated out of agricultural activity, but the AO and the CIT(A) disregarded the evidence filed by the assessee and sustained the addition towards cash deposit. Therefore, it was submitted that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 7. The Learned Sr. AR, Shri D. Praveen, on the other hand, supported the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that wherever the assessee has filed the evidence, the AO and the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee in respect of source for cash deposit. In respect of the explanation of the assessee with regard to the amount received from sale of Gold and claim of agricultural income for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, the appellant could not file relevant evidence and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared for both the AYs. Further, for the assessment year under consideration, the assessee has declared agricultural income only at Rs. 1,10,250/- and the AO has accepted the same. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that the assessee is deriving income from agricultural operations and the question is only what is the extent of agricultural income earned by the assessee for the AY 2015-16 and 2016-17. Since the assessee could not file relevant evidence including the extent of land holdings, in our considered view, going by the agricultural income declared for the AY 2017-18, a reasonable amount of the agricultural income needs to be considered for the purpose of source for cash deposit. Therefore, out of total agricultural income cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
