TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir share of agricultural income which was deposited in the joint bank account of the assessee with his son Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee is the husband of Sayarkunwar Deora and Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora is the husband of Bhuvnesh Deora. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee had received any loan from his family members. The nature of deposits has been duly explained. The other family members of the assessee have never admitted that they had given any loan to the assessee rather the plea is that the amount has been deposited in the joint saving bank account of the family. Penalty on account of loan from his son Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora - Held that:- We find t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee but because of the lack of evidence on the part of the assessee to prove his claim. The facts and circumstances of the case do not suggest that the claim of the assessee has been proved to be wrong or false. The factum of ownership of the agricultural land of the assessee has not been denied. Under these circumstances, we do not find it a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.7093/M/2014 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2016 - SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : None For The Revenue : Shri B.S. Bist, D.R. ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The above captioned two appeals preferred by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the land of the family. The assessee also furnished relevant documents pertaining to agricultural land/agricultural income. The AO, however, held that the assessee has not been able to produce evidence of agricultural activity. He, therefore, added the said amount as unexplained income. He also levied the penalty under section 271D against the assessee for receiving cash loans from the above said persons. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the impugned penalty. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 6. We find from the record that a letter dated 15.09.2014 has been addressed to Ld. CIT(A) wherein it has been explained that the assessee Shri Ranjitsingh Sardarsingh Deora was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the joint saving bank account of the family. 7. So far as the penalty on account of loan from his son Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora is concerned, we find that from the record that the said account in question was jointly held by the assessee along with Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora. Under these circumstances, the amount in question cannot be said to be received by the assessee as loan rather the amount in question was deposited by Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora in the joint account and it cannot, in any manner, be termed as a loan to the assessee as Shri Narendra Bhuvnesh Deora himself was also the holder of the account along with the assessee. It has been pleaded that the other two ladies have also deposited the said amount in the fami ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons and respective bills and vouchers for purchasing seeds and fertilizers, power consumption etc., he therefore treated the said deposit of ₹ 2.50 lakh as unexplained income of the assessee. He levied the impugned penalty on account of the said addition made into the income of the assessee. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty. 10. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and have also gone through the records. From the record, it is undisputed that the assessee is having agricultural land of 4.32 hectors. The additions have been made in this case on account of failture of the assessee to furnish evidences regarding the carrying out the agricultural operations. Whereas plea of the assessee had been that the land was given on contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
