9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,04,000/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee was having the source of the said deposits not giving the effect of the amount withdrawn and redeposited in bank and also did not allow the consideration received of Rs. 18,37,800/- instead of Rs. 11,92,000/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. A.O. both of them have erred in law and were not justified in disbelieving the sale proceeds of agriculture land (Rs. 18,37,800/-.) 6. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. A.O. were not justified in making addition of Rs. 29,96,000/- appeared in State Bank of India on 3.7.2005 and 18.7.2005 respectively whereas the peak investment in this said bank amounted to Rs. 19,31,000/- only. 7. That the appellant craves to add, alter or delete any ground or grounds of appeal on or before hearing. 2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of the AIR information. A notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') was issued. Since there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, the A.O. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further contended that no inquiry was made from the purchasers, even the co-owners of the land have confirmed this fact on oath, i.e. the actual consideration of the agricultural land so sold was higher than what was recorded in the sale deed. 8. Further, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the source of income but did not accept the opening cash balance as on 1.04.2005. He contended that under these facts ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the entire addition. 9. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) vehemently opposed these submissions. He submitted that the entire explanation so furnished is after thought and is not being supported by any material evidence. Ld. DR further submitted that the issue in question is to examine and verify the source of cash deposit which stood deposited in the account of the assessee. Hence, onus is on the assessee to prove the sources of the deposits with plausible evidences. He submitted that mere making statement would not be sufficient to accept the contention of the assessee. In rejoinder Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that all the relevant evidence have been placed on record. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Singh Meena Rs. 3,04,000 Cash received in parts prior to 27.05.2005 Rs. 3,04,000/- Regd. Sale deed dated 27.05.2005 in favour of Smt. Kaushalaya Bai Meena Rs. 2,80,000 Cash received in parts prior to 27.05.2005 Rs. 5,01,200/- Regd. Sale deed dated 27.05.2005 in favour of Shri Manmohan Singh Meena Rs. 3,04,000 Cash received in parts prior to 27.05.2005 Rs. 5,16,400/- Total Rs. 11,92,000/- Rs. 18,37,800/- It was claimed in the written submission filed during appeal that the purchasers had actually paid an amount of Rs. 18,37,800/- instead of Rs. 11,92,000/- mentioned in the registered sale deeds. It was further stated that the assessee and his eight siblings jointly held about 20acres of agricultural land out of which the above 1.5 acres X4=6.0 acres of land was sold by them as per the four registered sale deeds dated 27.05.2005. The assessee has filed Khasra and Form P-II which show that the land was irrigated and under cultivation of Soya bean. Accordingly to the assessee, the income from the said agricultural land was about Rs. 25,000/- per acre. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of I.T.A.T. Jabalpur in ITANo. 141/Jbp/2007 relat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 27.05.2005, the assessee had received cash of Rs. 11,92,000/- upto the date of registration, i.e. 27.05.2005. there is no material/evidence with the appellant to establish that the actually received, Rs. 18,37,800/- instead of Rs. 11,92,000/-. The plea of the assessee that cash of Rs. 11,92,000/- was available with him for being deposited on 03.07.2005 is accepted. Further the appellant and his siblings had a land holding of about 20 acres out of which 6 acres was sold on 27.05.2005. The assessee had filed Khasra and Form P-II which show that the land was irrigated and under cultivation of Soyabean. Accordingly to the assessee, the income from the said agricultural land was about Rs. 25,000/- per acre. However, in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding the actual receipt of sale proceeds or the actual consumption by the households of the 9 siblings, it is held that it would be reasonable if further credit of Rs. 2,00,000/- is given out of the agricultural income of Rs. 2,00,000/- claimed to be received during the current year (on 30.04.2015) and out of the agricultural income claimed to be forming part of the opening cash in hand. Upon due consideration of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our view revenue should have brought some material suggesting that the money as withdrawn from the bank account was used somewhere else and it was not available with the assessee for making deposits. In absence of such facts Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the source of deposit of Rs. 10,65,000/- on 18.07.2005. Hence, we direct the AO to delete this addition. In respect of the remaining addition it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the opening cash balance of Rs. 5,27,432/-. Looking to the fact that the assessee was having agricultural income and other source of income even if the opening balance is considered to be higher at least the assessee would be having cash on hand a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- which appears to be reasonable. Hence, the assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- being available as cash in hand. Regarding higher consideration received in cash we are of the considered view that onus was on the assessee to prove that the cash was received in addition to sum mentioned in sale deed. Further, the provisions of section 50C would not help as same operate in the different field. The contention of the assessee is therefore reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
