TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat these sums were utilized for any other purpose. Therefore, we are unable to affirm the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) for sustaining this addition as made on the basis that purpose of withdrawal of specific sums was not given. In our view revenue should have brought some material suggesting that the money as withdrawn from the bank account was used somewhere else and it was not available with the assessee for making deposits.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 ₹ 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 3,00,000/- which appears to be reasonable. Hence, the assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- being available as cash in hand. Regarding higher consideration received in cash we are of the considered view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 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. made assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The A.O. made addition of ₹ 29,96,000/- in respect of the amount deposited in the bank account of the assessee. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Out of addition of ₹ 29,96,000/- a sum of ₹ 13,92,000/- was deleted and rest of the addition was confirmed. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that he does not wish to press ground numbers 1 2 of the appeal. Hence, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Ground no.7 of the appeal is general in nature needs no separate adjudication. Hence, this ground is also dismissed. 5. Now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The authorities below have not considered these evidences in the right prospective. Ld. counsel submitted that the bank statement demonstrates deposit and withdrawal. Further, there is a sale deed demonstrating the sale of agricultural land, and other evidence suggesting the earning of agricultural income it is not the case where the assessee has failed to provide any evidence. 10. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the order of the authorities below. The only issue is with regard to source of sum of ₹ 19,31,000/- ₹ 10,65,000/- a total sum of ₹ 29,96,000/-( Twenty nine lacs ninety six thousand rupees only) deposited in cash on 03.07.2005 18.07.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived in parts prior to 27.05.2005 ₹ 5,16,400/- Total ₹ 11,92,000/- ₹ 18,37,800/- It was claimed in the written submission filed during appeal that the purchasers had actually paid an amount of ₹ 18,37,800/- instead of ₹ 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 ₹ 25,000/- per acre. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of I.T.A.T. Jabalpur in ITANo. 141/Jbp/2007 relating to A.Y. 2000-01 in which the estimated of agricultural income of ₹ 20,000/- per acre has been held to be faire and reasonable. The assessee further stated that apart from the sale consideration, he was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Closing bal. of cash book on 18.07.2005 6,51,232 4.4 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the assessee. The notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2013 well before 31.03.2013. This is sufficient time for the notice to reach by post. Hence the assessment has been validly made. The assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts. The cash flow statement has been prepared only to explain the cash credits. It is not based upon any books of accounts or supported by any documentary evidence. The assessee was not filing any returns of income. No return of income was filed in compliance to the notices u/s 148 for A.Y. 2006-07 under assessment. There is thus no evidence in support of the opening cash in and of ₹ 5,27,432/- as claimed by the assessee. Similarly, no documentary evidence has been furnished in support of the receipts of agricultural income of ₹ 2,00,000/- claimed to be received on 30.04.2015. As per the four registered sale deeds dated 27.05.2005, the assessee had received cash of ₹ 11,92,000/- upto the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the assessee is not maintaining books of accounts, however, accepted the factum of sale of land earning of agricultural income and did not accept the contention that the amount so withdrawn was deposited in the bank account. We have considered the material available on record and perused the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) the undisputed fact is that the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the fact that assessee was having agricultural income and also sold a piece of agricultural land proceeds whereof was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. It is also not rebutted by the revenue that before making deposits of sum of ₹ 10,65,000/- on 18.07.2005. The assessee had withdrawn sum of ₹ 40,000/-, ₹ 5,000/-, ₹ 7,000/- and ₹ 11,00,000/- on 04.07.2005,09.07.2005, 12.07.2005 and 15.07.2005 from the same bank account. Hence, the cash available with the assessee was higher than the cash deposited on 18.07.2005. The revenue has not placed on record demonstrating that these sums were utilized for any other purpose. Therefore, we are unable to affirm the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) for sustaining this addition as made on the basis that purpose of withdrawal of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
