RAJ KUMARI,SONEPAT vs. ITO WARD - 5, SONEPAT

The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under :

Before us, Learned AR submitted that during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings, the source of cash deposits was stated to be out of the agricultural income. He stated that though CIT(A) has noted that assessee was owning agricultural land of 9 acres but in the absence of any evidence with respect to the sale of crops, AO made the additions. Before us, Learned AR submitted that before the AO and CIT(A), assessee could not produce the evidences which are in the form of J Forms evidencing the sale of agriculture produce and its sale proceeds which had now has placed as an additional evidences. Since it pertained to very old period and were traced only after the passing of CIT(A)’s order, he therefore submitted that the additional evidences placed be admitted and the matter may be remanded to lower authorities for necessary verification.

Learned DR did not seriously object to the application for admission of additional evidences but however supported the order of lower authorities.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to the cash deposits made in the bank account which was treated as income from unexplained sources. It is the contention of the assessee that she has agricultural land of 9 acres in the district of Sonepat and the cash deposits in the bank account are out of the sale proceeds of agricultural produce. The assessee has now placed additional evidences in the form of receipts issued by Market committee in support of the contention that the cash deposits are out of sale proceeds from agriculture. I find that before AO and CIT(A), assessee could not produce the necessary evidence about the agricultural income as according to the assessee it pertained to very old period and could be traced subsequent to the passing of impugned order. Considering the totality of the facts, I am of the view that since the additional evidences goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the same needs to be admitted. I therefore admit the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. Since the same were not before the lower authorities when the matter was decided by them, I restore the issue back to the file of AO to decide the issue afresh in the light of the additional evidences filed by assessee. Needless to state that the AO shall grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Since the issue is restored back to the file of AO I am not adjudicating the issue on merits. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.