9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f natural justice and without affording an opportunity of being heard. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts in not adjudicating the grounds of appeals on merits. The impugned order has been passed without considering the submissions made by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on the sole grounds of categorizing the income as non-agricultural income. Additionally, there is a failure to acknowledge the fact that the assessee generates income from business activities and has chosen the presumptive taxation method under section 44AD. The declared profit for taxation is based on the gross turnover/receipts from the trading activity of agriculture products, and the assessee has not claimed the income as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The fact of the case is appellant had not filing his return of income for relevant assessment year. Based on information on cash deposit and receipts in 26AS, AO had reopened the case and issued the notice to appellant u/s 148. Appellant had filed the return in response to 148 notice. Appellant invoked the section 44AD in his return. There was no history of appellant filing return U/s 44AD. Further, appellant argues that cash deposits were from sale of agricultural produce but adduced no evidence. AO instead of treating entire cash deposit as unexplained, he had taken peak credit of appellant's bank account and added Rs. 4,01,007/- The main issue is whether appellant was able to explain the source of cash deposit from agricultural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act dealing with detailed scrutiny envisages that after hearing the evidence produced by the assessee and such other evidences as the AD may require and after taking into account all relevant materials, the AO shall make an assessment of the total income of the assessee. This AO is mandated by law to see evidences before arriving at conclusion. No where in Income Tax Act, 1961 says that for agricultural income, AO needs no evidence. It has been held by the Apex Court in CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu (1956) 29 ITR 529 (SC) that the onus lies on the assessee who claims exemption to establish it Therefore, as appellant had failed to submit evidence in support of sale of agricultural produce and expenditure incurred for the agricult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench that the order of assessment as well as order of the ld. CIT(A) lacks clear reference to the specific sections under which the addition is made. After perusal of the record, the Bench also found that no specific section has anywhere been mentioned by the Revenue Authorities for making addition. The Bench rely upon the following case laws. 1. Smt. Sudha Loyalka Vs ΓΙΟ (2018) 7 TMI (2018) (Delhi Tribunal) wherein it has been held:- "In our considered opinion, the sustaining of impugned addition is not justified due to the following reasons:-(Case Law #1) (i) It has not been mentioned either by A.O or by ld. CIT(A) as to under which section of the Income Tax Act, these closing credit balances appearing as on 31. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
