SIVA PRASAD NIDAMARTHY,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

The assessee sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits of Rs.28,95,000/-; allegedly representing his agricultural income, as un-explained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee has himself put in appearance as well. Our attention has invited to his paper book running into 23 pgs inter alia indicating him to be in possession of agricultural lands measuring 19.11 acres in Medak District. We are further taken to the CIT(A)’s order as well that the assessee had also filed the corresponding details of the said land along with the affidavit of Shri Nidamarthy Sushil Kumar. Case file also suggests that the Inspector of Income Tax had inspected the agricultural lands in question as per the directions of the ADIT and allegedly took photographs of crops and flowers etc. 4. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that although the assessee has throughout claimed himself have derived agricultural income, both the learned lower authorities have found sufficient loopholes in his explanation tendered in the course of assessment as well as in the CIT(A)’s proceedings.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings. We make it clear that the assessee’s stand from the day one that he had in fact sold agricultural produce harvested on the foregoing lands measuring 19.11 acres only. We note that he has placed on record the corresponding affidavit and other documentary evidences and was also found to be in possession thereof so far as the impugned income tax proceedings are concerned. Learned counsel also failed to deny the clinching fact that he has not filed on record the corresponding details of sale receipts in the agricultural marketing platform concerned. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that a lumpsum addition of Rs.14.5 Lakhs as against that in issue of Rs.28.95 Lakhs would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case or in any preceding or succeeding assessment year; as the case may be. It is further clarified that our foregoing detailed discussion would not be taken as a finding on fact regarding the assessee’s claim over title or possession of the lands concerned. Necessary computation to follow.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.