Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 261 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits - source of deposits - agriculture income - as per revenue explanation of the assessee is afterthought - HELD THAT:- The documentary evidence is self serving and consequently he confirmed the addition. In our humble understanding, the CIT(A) was very well entitled to raise objections in the submissions and rejoinder of the assessee, but, the remand report of the AO cannot be dismissed at the threshold which partly supports the explanation of the assessee regarding cash amount deposited to the bank account of the assessee. AO, after considering the entire facts and circumstances, relevant documentary evidence in the form of bank statements, accounts of family members in the ledger of the firm, concluded that the assessee could not produce any evidence for the balance amount. CIT(A) was duty-bound to consider the remand report of the AO wherein the AO has not raised any objection regarding the cash deposits to the bank account of the assessee after examination and verification of the relevant documentary evidence and statement of assessee's son Shri Mohit except alleging that the assessee has not produced any evidence on balance amount of Rs. 96,000/-. CIT(A) has given a sustainable finding for confirming the entire cash deposit to the bank account of the assessee. It cannot be ignored that the assessee and her family members jointly own 25 acres of fertile land in the State of Haryana and her husband also runs an enterprise related to the agricultural activities. The statement of the son of the assessee Shri Mohit clearly reveals that the amount of more than Rs. 15 lakh was received out of sale of one crop and household expenses were met from the other agricultural income and income from the firm. Thus the CIT(A) has gone wrong in dismissing the explanation of the assessee as well as remand report of the AO at the threshold by merely alleging the same as afterthought and self serving. Therefore, impugned first appellate order is set aside. As clear that before the AO, during remand proceedings, the assessee could not produce any sustainable evidence regarding part amount of Rs. 1,96,779/-. Except this, the AO found the explanation of the assessee and all relevant evidences in order and, therefore, safely presume that the assessee could not produce any evidence and sustainable explanation regarding cash deposit of Rs. 1,96,779/-. Therefore, the addition to this extent is sustainable and restrict the addition to Rs. 1,96,779/-. The AO is directed to delete remaining amount of addition
|