TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 873
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice u/s 148. 3. The proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147/148 are void ab-initio because the cash deposited in the bank by the assessee amounting to Rs. 58,74,210/- was^ treated as escaped income. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the addition of Rs.40,06,360/- as against the addition of Rs. 58,74,210/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act 1961 without rebutting the explanation of the assessee submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed o f f . " In ITA No. 84/Asr/2021: "1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, erred on facts and law, in dismissing the appeal of the assessee, vide order u/s 250 dated 28.07.2021, against the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1) (c) without providing proper opportunity of hearing. 2. That the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, erred on facts and law, in dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order imposing penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) dated 06.02.2020 because of the following reasons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsider the documentary evidence filed during the course of appellate proceedings, that the assessee is purely agriculturalist having no other source of income, but the CIT(A) has only relied on the findings in the appellate order deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee. 7. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed-off." I.T. A. No. 311/ASR/2019: 3. On the basis of the information of "AIR DATA" non-PAN based, the Assessing Officer noticed that during the year under consideration the appellant deposited Rs.58,74,210/- in his saving bank account. The AO stated that the assessee did not made compliance to either notice issued u/s 148 of the Act or show cause letter along with notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte on the basis of material available on records treating the amount of Rs.58,74,210/- deposited in his bank account as income from undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act. 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has granted part relief by observing vide paras 4.2 to 4.2.4 as under: "4.2 I have given careful consideration to the explanation submitted by the appellant and most....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p of potatoes was stored. Even if the slips of cold storage are believed it would show that the appellant was stocking potato in cold storage from 02/03/2009 to 29/03/2009 then how could he simultaneously sell the same on 01/03/2009 and 12/03/2009 for such large amount. It is matter of record that in Punjab successively for the year 2009 and 2010 there was sharp decline in the rates of potatoes and the produce was sold at distress. There is no quantitative details of sale and any evidence of converting those potatoes into actual cash by the appellant. There are no quantitative details and there is no evidence to show that the potatoes have been sold resulting into cash accumulation of Rs. 20,00,000/- at the opening of the year, Rs. 6,50,000/- on 01/03/2009 and Rs.7,50,000/- on 12/03/2009. It need to be appreciated that potatoes are very inexpensive crop and for generating sale to the extent of Rs.34,00,000/- as has been claimed in the fund flow statement above it would require institutional selling and not the retail selling. The appellant might for such purposes necessarily engage itself into sophisticated farming and marketing. There is not even a shred of evidence to substantiat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that entire sale proceeds of the family would be in the possession of the appellant as has been claimed but this is not believable the other family members would not part with their income." There is a contradiction in the findings of the CIT(A) in para 4.2.3 as the CIT(A) has accepted the agriculture income to the tune of Rs. 18,67,850/- while categorically recording the finding on the basis of total land holding of the family St the relevant finding are as under: - "However, considering the totally of circumstances of land holding of the family engaged in agriculture activity for past many years an estimated benefit of Rs.10 lakhs is being given because in the remand report also there is an indication that family might have income to that extent. The total benefit of agriculture income is Rs.10 lakhs plus Rs.8,67,850/-. " Further the CIT(A) has challenged the cash flow [reproduced in para 4.2 on page 6 of the order] while rejecting the contention of the assessee regarding availability of funds to the extent of Rs.34,00,000/- from sale of crop of potato detailed as under:- Date Amount Opening balance as on 01.04.2008 20,00,000/- 01.03.2009 6,50,000/- 12.03.2009 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The ld. DR relied on the order of ld. CIT(A). 7. Heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record, written submissions and citations filed before us. It is admitted and undisputed fact on record that the assessee in joint ownership with family members owns 40.5 acres of agriculture land, including 4.5 Acres in his own individual ownership for the agriculture income earned on yearly basis and for that all the necessary details have been furnished but the CIT(A), doubted that the entire sale proceeds of the agriculture land of the family would not be in the possession of the assessee as the assessee owns only 4.5 acres of land (Para 4.2.1). The relevant observation of the CIT(A) is reproduced below:- "It would be fallacy to take on record that entire sale proceeds of the family would be in the possession of the appellant as has been claimed but this is not believable the other family members would not part with their income." 8. It is seen that there is a contradiction in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) as in para 4.2.3, the CIT(A) has accepted the agriculture income to the tune of Rs. 18,67,850/- by categorically recording the finding on the basis of total land holdin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....86] issued to Ramandeep Singh Sidhu, and marked as registered potato grower, it is crop being found in compliance to the standards of Global GAP. * Certificate of Dy. Director Horticulture, Bathinda [PB-33] in which average crop of the potato has been confirmed to the extent of 117 quintals per acre during F.Y. 2008-09. * Calculation of sale receipts of Potato on [PB-83] in which Rs.20,00,000/- has been calculated as sale consideration of Potato for F.Y. 2008-09 only. * Evidence of stocking pf potato with Avtar Cold Storage, [Rampura Phul] of 3809 bags during F.Y. 2008-09 [PB-8-32]. 11. The AR contended that from the above stated facts, the amount of Rs.34,00,000/- as agricultural income taken by the assessee from sale consideration of potato is reasonable. 12. The Delhi bench of the ITAT in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Malik vs. ITO in ITA No.7732/Del/2018 dated 28.12.2022 held that where the assessee has established on record that it had receipts from sale of agriculture produced and has furnished the details of agriculture land holding, the claim of the assessee regarding the agriculture income cannot be denied only because invoices relating to sale are not available. The L....