TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f transfer expenses of ₹ 2,00,000/- on sale of agricultural land. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of cash credits amounting to ₹ 17,51,000/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that assessee filed return of income on 28.1.2014 declaring total income of ₹ 6,98,467/- and an agricultural income of ₹ 4.50,200/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the Act ) was framed vide order dated 16.1.2016.The A.O. while framing the assessment made addition in respect of capital gain of ₹ 75,35,438/-, income from other sources of ₹ 23,90,602/- and unexplained credit in bank account of ₹ 17,51,000/-. Hence, the A.O. after giving deduction under Chapter 16A assessed income at ₹ 97,40,840/-. The assessing officer also computed agricultural income at ₹ 3,00,000/- against the agricultural income claimed at ₹ 4,50,200/-. 3. Aggrieved by this action of the A.O., the assessee preferred an appeal before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly. He would explain his source. CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 366 ITR 217 (Raj.) 3 Shri Vishwas Patidar s/o Radheshyam Patidar 3,00,000 1) Received by cheque, Bank pass book at pg.17 para (c) 2) Identity proof Election ID PB 120 (back) 3) Confirmation PB 119 4) Source of Income Agriculture, land revenue records produced PB 117 5) Repaid on 19.1.2013 PB 118 (back) 6) Cash was deposited before issue of cheque to assessee. He was agriculturist and his income was in cash only. He would explain his source. CIT Vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 366 ITR 217 (Raj.) 4. Shri Radheyshyam Patidar 3,00,000 1) Received by cheque. Bank pass book at pg.19 2) Confirmation PB 119 3) Source of income Agriculture land revenue records produced PB 122- 123 4) Repaid on 7.1.2013 AO pg.19 5) Cash was deposited before issue of cheque to assessee. He was agriculturist and his income was in cash only. He would explain his source. Huge cash deposits before issue of cheque to assessee. He would explain his source. CIT Vs. Jai Kumar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-, and thus appear to be intentionally done with the aim of avoiding the quoting of PAN and subsequent scrutiny. It is also to be noted that there is no evidence placed on record that the deposits flow out of sale of agricultural produce and even if it is so curiously all sales are of ₹ 49000/-. In the normal course the agricultural receipts would vary and if the entire amount was in hand with the depositor the same could have been deposited at one go. The bank account of the depositor produced does not establish that the deposit pattern was a regular feature in the account of Shri Jagdish Patidar is found to be not satisfactorily explained and hence the A.O. was justified in treating the same as income of the appellant. 2. Smt. Lalita Patidar: Shri is the wife of Shri Jagdish Patidar and the facts are identical to those of Shri Jagdish Patidar. Her creditworthiness is not established as her agricultural land holding and income is not adequate to explain the cash deposits in her bank account. Therefore, A.O was justified in treating the said deposit as also not having been satisfactorily explained. 3 4 Shri Vishwas Patidar Shri Radhyshyam Patidar: Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the appellant as the appellant was not maintaining any books of accounts and on the basis of entries in the bank account no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act. From the record it is seen that during the course of assessment proceedings the appellant has filed balance sheet, Trial balance, ledger accounts cash book and UCO bank savings a/c book. The last named account shows the receipt of money as loan from all the above cash creditors and the unsecured loans outstanding at the end of the year are seen in the balance sheet. In view of the above the contention that section 68 cannot be invoked as no books are maintained is found to be without merits. In this context it is relevant to note the observations of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of VISP (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 265 ITR 202 MP which are reproduced below. Learned counsel, appearing for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Baladin Ram v. CIT (1969) 71 ITR 427 and the decisions of the Mumbai and Allahabad High Courts reported in CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 and Sundar Lal Jain v. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 316, respectively, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
