TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Paddy is not a perishable commodity. The paddy harvested by the agriculturists can be stored for a reasonable period of time. At the best, the moisture content may be reduced by passage of time. The paddy is not a perishable commodity. Therefore, merely because the bills were raised during the period when there was no harvest, that cannot be a reason to doubt the purchase itself. Rule 6DD relaxes the rigour of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act with regard to payment made to agricultural and forest produces purchased from cultivator, grower or producer of such articles. When Rule 6DD enables the purchaser to pay cash after taking into consideration of the economic condition in which the agriculturists of this country are living, expecting a bill/voucher from the agriculturists is something which cannot be obtained by the assessee. In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition - Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained cash deposit in bank account - Held that:- The CIT(Appeals), by following his own order in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08, found that the net available cash as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2014 are dismissed. 3. Now coming to I.T.A. No.993/Mds/2014, the first issue arises for consideration is with regard to addition of ₹ 8,07,747/- towards inflation of purchase of rice. 4. Dr. B. Nischal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee deposited a sum of ₹ 43,03,588/- in Indian Bank, Thiruvannamalai Branch. No books of account were maintained. The assessee clarified that the deposit of ₹ 33,78,600/- was purported to be in connection with Trading, Profit Loss account of the assessee. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that he has purchased paddy from farmers for a sum of ₹ 8,07,747/-. The assessee has maintained bought notes wherein the names of the farmers and the dates of purchase were said to be mentioned. According to the Ld. D.R., the bought notes were not produced before the Assessing Officer. It was produced only before the CIT(Appeals). The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has exported rice for ₹ 33,78,600/-. The Ld. D.R. further submitted that the assessee could not produce any invoice / bill for purchase of paddy from so-called agriculturists. In the absence of any material for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... What is to be seen is whether the assessee has purchased the paddy or not. In this case disallowance was made only on the ground that the assessee has not produced the bills and vouchers. The fact remains that the assessee has produced bought note which contains the names of the farmers and their village names. By referring to the village name and name of the farmers, one can easily identify the individual from whom the paddy was purchased. It is not necessary to mention their complete address of the farmers who are living in the village. Each and every agriculturist can be very much identified by referring to their individual name and the village. Therefore, the Assessing Officer may not be justified in saying that the bought note does not contain complete name and address of the farmers. 7. The next contention of the Assessing Officer appears to be that the farmers could not preserve their paddy and sell in a later stage. The argument of the Assessing Officer is farfetched. Paddy is not a perishable commodity. The paddy harvested by the agriculturists can be stored for a reasonable period of time. At the best, the moisture content may be reduced by passage of time. The paddy i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /-. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) presumed that the assessee could explain the source for making investment in the bank account. As rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel for the assessee, this fact needs to be verified. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the issue of addition of ₹ 5,23,773/- is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the issue in the light of availability of funds as on 31.03.2007 and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 12. The next ground of appeal is with regard to addition of ₹ 21,00,000/- towards unexplained loans and advances. 13. Dr. B. Nischal, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that while explaining the cash deposit for the assessment year 2008-09 in the case of Smt. Punitha Balakrishnan, it was claimed that there was transfer of funds from the assessee to the extent of ₹ 21,00,000/-. However, the loan said to be advanced by the assessee to his wife Smt. Punitha Balakrishnan was not reflected in the balance sheet at all. Therefore, the Assessing Officer doubted the liability o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
