SUGRIV,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO NOHAR 2 HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

The grounds raised for adjudication by the appellant read as under:- 1. That the order passed by learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi in NO.CIT(A) BIKANER/10526/2018-19 in short CIT(A) NFAC is against law-equity- Justice and facts of the case.

Facts of the case may be narrated as that, on the basis of information available, it was found that the appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 36,12,500/- in his bank account during the financial year under consideration, out of which the peak amount was Rs. 21,76,531/- and the case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny u/s 147 of the Act and accordingly, notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act, were issued time to time, to the appellant and in compliance of the same, the appellant filed income tax return on 17-12- 2018 showing tax income of Rs. 210/- and agriculture income of Rs 6,12,500/-. At the completion of assessment proceeding, total income of the appellant computed as Rs. 36,12,710/-. Appellant filed appeal against above order, where the Learned CIT(A), partly allowed the appeal, by deleting the addition of Rs. 16,15,000/- u/s 69A of the Act and upheld the addition of Rs. 5,61,531/- by deleting balance addition.

We noticed that the present appeal is delayed by 120 days, for which application supported with affidavit, submitted the explanation regarding non filing appeal in prescribed time, so considering in right prospective, in order to achieve the goal of justice and to ensure disposal of issues on its merits alone, we condone the same.

Heard rival submissions and carefully scanned the material available on record.

Per Contra, the Learned DR relied upon impugned order.

The Learned AR further submitted that in the order passed by the Learned AO, there is no any mention of existence of any other source of income except agriculture and the appellant has total 20 bighas of irrigated agriculture land, in which 8 bighas in own name and rest 12 bighas in the name of mother. It is also submitted that the Learned AO accepted Rs. 3,00,000/- as agriculture income and made addition of Rs. 19,97,500/-, without mentioning as to how only Rs. 3 lacks is agriculture income, whereas the Learned AO ought to have proved existence of another source of income of the appellant.

In the impugned order, the CIT(A) observed that vocation of lenders as agriculturists stand asserted with mandi receipts and the advances are contemporaneous with the appellant’s concentrated bank deposits and adverse inference merely because of minor discrepancies

There is material substance in submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant that there was no any contrary material available before both the lower authorities that appellant having income other than agricultural source and instead of Rs. 6,12,500/-, the Learned AO, declared Rs. 3,00,000/- as agricultural income, by simply stating that no evidence regarding cultivation of land by appellant, which is in the name of his mother and in this regard , the Learned CIT(A), accepted the plea of the appellant.

On the basis of foregoing fact situation and plea of appellant as aforesaid quite sustainable, we are of considered view that the appeal deserves to be allowed by deleting addition in question.