TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r last 8 to 10 years then a savings of ₹ 5.00 lacs for the 10 years of agricultural income from a land of 34 to 35 bighas is not an abnormal claim of the assessee. A.O. has not disputed the fact that the assessee is not having any other source of income but the agricultural income only, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the savings for last 8 to 10 years of the assessee cannot be disputed and that too in toto. Hence, the claim of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 785/JP/2019 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) - - - Dated:- 19-9-2019 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) Revenue by: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of the information that the assessee had deposited cash of ₹ 25,64,500/- in the bank account. In response to the notice U/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring bank interest of ₹ 3,490/- and agricultural income of ₹ 3,05,200/-. The A.O. asked the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit made in the bank account. The assessee submitted that the assessee is carrying out agriculture operation on the land of 35 bighas for last 8 to 10 years and therefore, deposit made in the bank account is out of agricultural income and cash balance with the assessee being savings of the earlier years. The assessee has claimed that there was opening cash balance of ₹ 5,28,398/- and agricultur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years at ₹ 5,28,398/- as on 01/04/2009 cannot be doubted. The assessee has claimed agricultural income of ₹ 3,05,200/- during the year which was estimated by the ld. CIT(A) at ₹ 2.00 lacs without any basis, therefore, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified. The ld. AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 0570 and submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the A.O. has the discretion in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee as income of the assessee U/s 69 of the Act. Thus, once the assessee has explained the source of deposit made in the bank account the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the agricultural income claimed by the assessee at ₹ 3,05,200/- which was estimated by the ld CIT(A) at ₹ 2.00 lacs. As regards the estimation of income by the ld. CIT(A), once the assessee has brought on record the fact that he is doing agriculture operation on a land measuring 34 to 35 bighas then the claim of the assessee of agricultural income of ₹ 3,05,200/- is not excessive but it is very reasonable and fair. The ld. CIT(A) has estimated the income at ₹ 2.00 lacs but without giving any basis how the agricultural income from the land of 35 bighas is estimated at ₹ 2.00 lacs. Therefore, in absence of any basis of estimating agricultural income of ₹ 2.00 lacs, the claim of agricultural income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
