Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 427 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits - Genuiness of Agricultre income - Sale of mango and chikoo and miscellaneous vegetable - AO held that assessee could not substantiate the genuineness of income which pertains to sales bills issued which was added to the total income of assessee - CIT(A) after considering the reply of assessee took his view that assessee has merely made stress about the agricultural income though the fact that circumstances disprove the claim of agricultural income - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) or the AO has not disputed the area of agricultural land owned by assessee. The lower authorities have not disputed the numbers of mango and chikoo trees in agriculture holding. Assessee has filed affidavit of contractor / persons who have received the agricultural produce before the lower authorities. Lower authorities have not exercised their power to examine such persons u/s 131 nor directed the assessee to produce such persons for verification of facts or for their cross-examination. No physical verification of mango trees and chikoo trees or other agricultural produce was conducted. I am conscious of the fact that case of assessee was related to assessment year 2007-08 and the Ld. CIT(A) passed the appellate order on 20.12.2017. However, from number of trees the estimation of yields of fruits could be easily got estimated. No such exercise was conducted before making any enhancement. CIT(A) relied on the pattern of cash deposits by taking view that there was substantial fluctuation instead of examining the fact that agricultural produce depends on various factors like weather, wind temperature in the season or natural calamities etc. In absence of adverse evidence against furnishing by assessee, Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in making enhancement. Decided in favour of assessee. Addition was made for want of evidence - As assessee has furnished affidavits of contractors / purchaser before ld CIT(A). They have specified in their affidavit that as and such payments were made to the assessee. No doubt that such affidavit was sworn in the month of July, 2017, but still the assessing officer has not directed the assessee to produce such person for their cross examination. However, assessee, has agreed for such addition and no contrary fact is shown addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 6,02894/- is confirmed. Hence, ground of appeal is dismissed.
|