PRAHLAD SINGH FAUJDAR,AGRA vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(3), AGRA

In the present case, the Assessing Officer had made the addition of Rs.7,82,200/- on the basis of the deposits made in the bank account. It was the case of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that the assessee is involved in agricultural activities on the land of his family members and submitted the details of the family members owning the land which was utilized by the assessee for the purpose of cultivation. Our attention was drawn to the statement of Shri Surendra Pratap recorded by the Assessing Officer, wherein it was agreed that he has 30 bighas of land which was given on lease basis to the assessee. Further, it was submitted that the details of land was not produced by him on the date of recording his statement, which he had promised to produce on the subsequent date as and when called upon. The Assessing Officer was not convinced either by the statement of Shri Surendra Pratap or with other explanations given by the assessee and therefore, made addition of Rs.7,82,200/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) who also confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

Before us, it was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had duly explained the source of income, which was deposited in the bank and submitted that the addition made by the lower authorities is required to be deleted.

Per contra, the ld. DR has drawn our attention to the written synopsis filed before us and has submitted that Shri Surender Pratap was not the owner of the agricultural land during the period 2012-13 and there is no written agreement. The assessee has not given the details or evidence to prove the sale of agricultural produce. He had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Smt. Prem Sundari vs. CIT, wherein the Hon’ble High Court in last para has recorded as under :

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. For the purpose of making the addition u/s. 68, three cardinal principles are required to be established by the Assessee, namely, the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. In the present case, the assessee had produced Shri Surendra Pratap who acknowledged having owned 30 bighas of land and further acknowledged that the land was given on Batai to the assessee. The statement was duly recorded by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has not brought on record anything contrary to the statement recorded by him and therefore, no evidence was produced to prove/controvert that Shri Surendra Pratap was not the owner of the said land or the land was not leased out on Batai basis to the assessee. In our view, initial onus is being discharged by the assessee and we are convinced with the genuineness of the transaction and are satisfied that the amount was received by the assessee on account of sale of agricultural produce. In presence of these facts, the onus was shifted from the assessee to the Assessing Officer and it was for the Assessing Officer to bring on record any evidence to the contrary. In the present case, nothing adverse was brought on record contradicting the statements recorded by the Assessing Officer of Shri Surendra Pratap and therefore, it succeeds the test of admissibility and we are of the opinion that the assessee had established

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) (Laliet Kumar) Accountant Member Judicial member