TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re unable to concur with the same. Assessee had prepared a consolidated cash flow statement for a period of three years, i.e. 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2017 to justify the source of the cash deposits in his bank account. As the aforesaid cash/fund flow statements filed by the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings cannot not be construed as the regular books of account maintained by him, therefore, his aforesaid contention, for which, support had been drawn from the aforementioned judicial pronouncements would not carry his case any further. Apropos the cash deposits in the joint Agricultural Kisan Credit (KCC) Account, we find substance in the contention of the Ld. AR that as his brother, had by way of an affidavit dated 04.01.2024 [filed before the CIT(A)] deposed that the said bank account was solely being used by him and the deposits/withdrawals made in the same related to his farming business, therefore, there was no justification for the CIT(Appeals) to have summarily brushed aside the said material fact and without rebutting the contents of the same held the cash deposits in the said bank account as the unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A - matter in all fairne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s claimed by the assessee that the same were sourced out of sale proceeds of agriculture produce of 16 acres of agricultural land (including 8 acres of agriculture land situated at Vill. Kapasada, Dist. Durg taken on lease from his nephew) under his self-cultivation. However, the aforesaid explanation of the assessee did not find favor with the A.O. On a perusal of the cash book produced by the assessee, the A.O. observed that cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account had substantially increased in comparison to those made in the same period during the immediately preceding years. Also, it was observed by the A.O. that the land holding of the assessee during the year under consideration had remained the same as that of the preceding years. Further, it was observed by the A.O. that the assessee had failed to place on record any documentary evidence that would substantiate his claim as regards the source of cash deposits in his bank accounts. Accordingly, the A.O. held the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs. 22.30 lacs (approx.) as the assessee's unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5032110000343 held by the assessee, Shri Dinesh Solanki (brother of the assessee) Smt. Jayshree Sunil Solani (sister-in-law of the assessee): Rs. 9.95 lacs. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that though the assessee in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals) had filed an affidavit dated 04.01.2024 of Shri Dinesh Solanki (assessee's brother), wherein he had admitted that the joint Agricultural Kisan Credit (KCC) Account No.935032110000343 was solely used by him and deposits/withdrawals from the said account related to his farming business but the CIT(Appeals) had failed to take cognizance of the facts so stated on oath by the aforementioned person. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that it was not a case that the CIT(Appeals) had given any reason for not considering the affidavit of Shri Dinesh Solanki (supra); or declined to admit the affidavit , but in fact, was a clear reflection of an arbitrary approach adopted by him wherein he had brushed aside the same for no valid reason. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the cash deposits of Rs. 9.95 lacs in the joint Agricultural Kisan Credit (KCC) Account No.935032110000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the provisions of Section 69A of the Act would, inter alia, come into play only in a case where the assessee is found to be the owner of any money that is not recorded in the books of accounts and the assessee fails to offer any explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money; or the explanation so offered by him is not in the opinion of the A.O satisfactory. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the cash deposits of Rs. 12.35 lacs (supra) were duly recorded in the cash book of the assessee for the year under consideration, which was produced in the course of the assessment proceedings, therefore, the applicability of the aforesaid statutory provision was clearly ousted. 11. To sum up, the Ld. AR submitted that now when cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were duly reflected in his cash book, the A.O could not have dubbed the said cash deposits as the unexplained money of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act. The Ld. AR to buttress his claim had relied on the orders of the ITAT, Raipur in the case of M/s. Arihant Associates Vs. Income Tax Officer, (2023) 69 CCH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as his brother, viz. Shri Dinesh Solanki (supra) had by way of an affidavit dated 04.01.2024 [filed before the CIT(Appeals)] deposed that the said bank account was solely being used by him and the deposits/withdrawals made in the same related to his farming business, therefore, there was no justification for the CIT(Appeals) to have summarily brushed aside the said material fact and without rebutting the contents of the same held the cash deposits in the said bank account as the unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. As Shri Dinesh Solanki (supra) who is being assessed with the income tax department with PAN: BOVPS1000Q and in his return of income for the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y.2017-18 disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 8,09,980/- (net of expenses), had categorically owned the cash deposits of Rs. 9.95 lacs made during the demonetization period in the aforementioned Joint Agricultural Kisan Credit (KCC) Account No. 935032110000343, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) without placing on record any material which would have falsified the aforesaid claim could not have held the subject cash deposits as the unexplained money of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rne from the record that the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 4,98,720/- (net of expenses) for the year under consideration, Page 93-94 of APB. Also, the assessee had in his return of income for the immediately preceding year, i.e. A.Y.2015-16 and A.Y.2016-17 disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 6.87 lacs (approx.) and Rs. 4.28 lacs (approx.) in his returns of income for the said respective years. Considering the aforesaid source of income of the assessee, i.e. agricultural income, I am of the view that cash in hand to the extent of Rs. 4 lacs [out of past year savings Rs. 2.50 lacs (+) out of current agricultural income Rs. 1.50 lacs] can safely be held to be available with him for souring the cash deposits in his aforesaid bank account during the demonetization period. At this stage, I may herein observe that there is substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that as the government had demonetized the currency, therefore, it was for the said reason that the assessee was compelled to deposit the demonetized currency available with him in his bank account, which, thus, justified the change in trend concerning the cash deposits in his bank account as in comparison to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
