TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought any adverse material. The entire transactions took place through banking channel, therefore no justification for making such addition. In the result, ground No.1 of appeal raised by assessee is allowed. Characterization of income - addition by treating agricultural income as income from other sources - HELD THAT:- AO has not brought any adverse material on record to substantiate his contention that he is not exclusively undertaking the agricultural activities in the agricultural land under joint ownership. Neither the assessee has fully discharged his onus by filing confirmation from other co-owners that the land jointly owned by them is fully occupied and cultivated for the purpose of agriculture activities by assessee only, nor the assessing officer has brought any adverse material to fully discard the contention of the assessee. Therefore, keeping in view the agriculture income of earlier year accepted by the department, in my view an estimated/ lump sum allowance of Rs. 3.00 lakh as agriculture income would be sufficient to meet the end of justice. Thereby, remaining disallowance of agriculture income of Rs. 146,100/- is upheld.Assessee gets part relief. - Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hgiri M. Goswami, where no details of advanced was found and assessee has not furnished his assets liabilities and Nareshbhai Vashrambhai Balar given loan after depositing cash in his bank account on the same day. On the agricultural income, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has not furnished any details to prove the genuineness of his agricultural income, except sale bills of agricultural produce. Copy of Form 8/A and Form 7/12 were not furnished. Further, in assessment year 2015-16, the assessee has shown net agricultural income of Rs. 1,58,400/-, however, in current assessment year i.e., 2016-17 the agricultural income increased to Rs. 4,46,100/-. On the basis of aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer issued detailed show cause notice to the assessee on both the issues vide notice dated 15.12.2018 and asked the assessee to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions. The assessee furnished required details, which was already filed. The again assessee furnished copy of bank statements, ITR on the observation about cash deposits in the bank account that one of the lenders, the assessee explained that if the lender has sufficient cash ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officer allowed agriculture income to the extent of Rs. 89,220/- (being 1/5 of Rs. 4,46,100/-) out of total agriculture income declared by assessee and added remaining agricultural income of Rs. 3,56,880/- (Rs. 4,46,100 - 89,220/-). 5. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed detailed written submission. On the addition of unsecured loan, assessee submitted that Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 14.00 lakh by treating the unsecured loan as unexplained cash credits. During assessment, the assessee furnished complete evidence to substantiate the identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the creditors. The assessee furnished account confirmation, ITR with bank statements and discharged his onus. The unsecured loan was received through proper banking channel and Assessing Officer made adverse inference only on the ground that lenders have credit entry almost same amount prior to give loan to assessee. The plea of Assessing Officer that lenders are not capable of providing such loan as they were having less income than the loan provided to assessee. Such observation c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urrent year, it was held that it is highly probable that assessee has concocted the agricultural income to claim excess exempt income. The ld CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer was reasonable in estimating such agricultural income at Rs. 89,220/- being 1/5th share of the total agricultural income and justified in addition of remaining amount of Rs. 3,56,880/- as income from other source of assessee. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 8. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue. Ground No.1 relates to addition of Rs. 14.00 lakh under section 68 of the Act. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee furnished complete details of the lenders to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of such transactions. The assessee has received unsecured loan of Rs. 14.00 lakh from three persons, namely, Nareshbhai V Balar for Rs. 5.00 lakh, Jentibhai J. Kotadiya for Rs. 4.00 lakh and Subhashgiri M. Goswami for Rs. 5.00 lakh respectively. The assessee furnished all necessary evidence i.e., confirmation of bank ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed loan as unexplained cash credit, Ld. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee miserable failed to prove the creditworthiness of all the lenders. Thus, the action of Assessing Officer is fully rational and justified. So far as addition of agricultural income is concerned, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that Assessing Officer on a very reasonable manner after considering the joint ownership qua the agricultural holding allowed relief to the extent of assessee s share. The assessee has not filed any evidence to substantiate that no other co-owner has claimed similar agricultural income or agricultural activities exclusively carried out by him. The ld DR for the revenue prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the records carefully. I have also deliberated on various case law relied upon by Ld. AR for the assessee. Ground No.1 relates to addition under section 68 of the Act. I find that the Assessing Officer made addition by taking view that the lenders were not capable of giving such loans. I find that Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act, which was duly served on lenders, namely, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... once the Assessing Officer has accepted the ownership in the joint names of assessee, the right course of action was to call for or examine the remaining co-owners, if they have claimed similar agricultural income or agricultural activities are exclusively carried out by the assessee or not. I find that Assessing Officer has not brought any adverse material on record to substantiate his contention that he is not exclusively undertaking the agricultural activities in the agricultural land under joint ownership. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that neither the assessee has fully discharged his onus by filing confirmation from other co-owners that the land jointly owned by them is fully occupied and cultivated for the purpose of agriculture activities by assessee only, nor the assessing officer has brought any adverse material to fully discard the contention of the assessee. Therefore, keeping in view the agriculture income of earlier year accepted by the department, in my view an estimated/ lump sum allowance of Rs. 3.00 lakh as agriculture income would be sufficient to meet the end of justice. Thereby, remaining disallowance of agriculture income of Rs. 146,100/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
