Loading judgment…
Facts
Search operations at the assessee's premises led to the discovery of bank passbooks belonging to employees and relatives, showing cash deposits totaling Rs. 8.85 crores over several financial years. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 153A and added these deposits as unexplained income.
Held
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits in the employees' and relatives' bank accounts pertained to the assessee. However, instead of taxing the entire deposits, it directed the AO to compute the peak credit for each relevant year, considering the pattern of deposits and withdrawals, and tax only that amount. Regarding agricultural income, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to consider 50% as genuine and the remaining 50% as unexplained due to lack of documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits in the bank accounts of employees and relatives, found during a search, constitute unexplained income of the assessee assessable under Section 153A, and whether the disallowance of 50% of declared agricultural income is justified.
Sections Cited
153A, 69A, 68, 132(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: Aforesaid five appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 to 2019-20 and four appeals filed by the to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 2 -:
Revenue for A.Ys 2016-17 to 2019-20 arises out of the identical orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals, Chennai-20 [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 20.12.2024.
The facts in all the appeals of the assessee are identical and issues are common hence, we proceed to pass a common order. For brevity, we shall take up the appeal in for A.Y 2015-16 as lead case. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y 2009-10 are as under:
1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 20 [CIT(A)] confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) is contrary to law, facts, and circumstances of the case. The learned CIT(A) failed to seen that addition made under Section 153A is without jurisdiction and deserves to be deleted.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition on peak credit basis under section 69A of the Act, even though the deposits in question were made in the respective bank accounts of the employees and relatives of the appellant, and not in the appellant's own bank account. The addition has been sustained without properly appreciating the source, ownership, and nature of the deposits, thereby rendering the addition erroneous and unsustainable in law.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 ought to have seen that the AO has erred in law and on facts in making an addition under Section 153A based on the passbook of employees allegedly found at the appellant's premises and solely relying on a statement recorded at the time of search, without any independent corroborative evidence.
4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that passbook, being a document belonging to an employee and not the appellant, does not qualify as incriminating material under Section 153A. Accordingly, the addition made solely based on its discovery is untenable and deserves to be deleted. to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 3 -:
5. The learned CIT(A)-20 ought to have seen that the AO erred in making an addition under the head unexplained money based on mere presumptions and suspicions without any direct material to establish that the amounts in the employee passbooks were unaccounted income of the appellant and that passbooks were used to route undisclosed cash transactions on behalf of the appellant.
6. The learned CIT(A)-20 failed to see that passbook pertains to an employee of the appellant and not to the appellant itself and that there is no evidence to suggest that the appellant has any beneficial ownership or control over the transactions reflected in the passbook. The learned CIT(A) failed to see that the AO has made the addition without proving any direct link between the entries in the passbook and any undisclosed income of the appellant.
7. The learned CIT(A)-20 erred in not appreciating that the mere discovery of employee passbooks at the appellant's premises does not constitute valid incriminating material under the law. Passbooks belonging to third-party employees, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, do not establish any undisclosed income of the appellant. Furthermore, no transactional link or financial nexus has been demonstrated between the appellant and the deposits reflected in these passbooks, rendering the addition unsustainable in law.
8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 ought to have seen that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in law and on facts in making an addition under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, without there being any incriminating material found during the search. The learned CIT(A) failed to see that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 152 taxmann.com 52 (SC) has categorically held that in the case of a non-abated assessment, no addition can be made without incriminating material.
The learned CIT(A) failed to see that it is a settled law that no addition can be made based on mere suspicion or conjecture. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) held that The onus is on the department to prove that an income is undisclosed and mere possession of documents without conclusive evidence of ownership or control does not justify an addition.
The learned CIT(A)-20 failed to see that the AO erred in law and on facts. in making an addition purely on the basis of a sworn to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 4 -: statement recorded at the time of search without any independent corroborative material in doing so the learned CIT(A) failed to consider the decision of the Jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Jayalakshmi (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad) wherein the Hon'ble Court categorically held that a sworn statement recorded under Section 132(4) has no evidentiary value unless supported by tangible material evidence and that a mere admission in a statement, without further corroboration, cannot form the sole basis for addition.
11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20 ought to have seen that a mere statement recorded during search, without corresponding incriminating material, is insufficient to sustain an addition. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the AO must substantiate admissions made in sworn statements with proper inquiry and supporting evidence and an addition made without conducting any independent verification is arbitrary and bad in law.
12. The learned CIT(A) although admits that the appellant is engaged in agricultural operations and holds extensive land erred in law in disallowing 50% of the agricultural income declared by the appellant only on the basis of suspicion and surmise.
Ground Nos. 1 to 11 relate to the addition of cash deposits in the bank accounts in the names of the assessee’s employees and his relatives held to be assess’s own money.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the real estate business in the name of M/s. Singhvi Properties and is also Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s. Singhvi Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Dakshasheela Global School. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee on 01.11.2019 at his residential and office premises. During the course of search at his residence, several bank passbooks in the to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand
:- 5 -: names of the assessee’s employees and their relatives were found and seized. From these passbooks it was found that cash deposits had been made during Financial Years 2008-09 to 2018-19 amounting to Rs. 8.85 crores, as detailed below:
Account Holder AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY AY 2008- 2009- 2010- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- 2019- Name 09 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Accountant C.P. -- 2.00 2.75 25.00 26.50 13.51 10.00 28.50 26.00 -- -- Jaishankar House maid -- -- -- - -- 2.00 -- -- 2.50 -- -- Violet Carlo Devarajan -- -- -- -- 19.50 12.20 -- 23.50 36.95 19.00 -- Driver -- -- -- -- 6.00 13.50 2.00 14.50 24.55 5.00 6.50 Kubendran Accountant N. 4.23 4.00 3.06 23.38 9.50 -- -- -- -- -- -- Sankaran Sudharshan -- -- -- 4.0 9.50 5.50 3.00 -- 0.20 0.20 -- Scholl P.O -- -- -- -- -- 7.50 -- 26.50 20.50 18.00 3.00 Padmanabhan Selvam -- -- -- -- 15.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- N. Shankara’s -- -- -- -- -- 8.50 12.50 -- 24.50 19.50 2.50 father, Chinna Ponnusamy Scholl Staff, -- -- -- -- 2.00 21.50 5.00 10.50 36.00 18.00 5.50 Ravi Driver Sridhar -- -- -- -- -- 2.50 5.00 20.75 37.50 17.00 2.50 Baby J -- -- -- -- -- 15.20 18.50 33.50 38.25 44.50 4.50 Total 4.23 6.00 5.81 52.38 88.00 102.51 56.00 157.75 246.95 141.20 24.50
The Assessing Officer (A.O) initiated assessment proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act and made additions on account of cash deposits made in the bank accounts of the assessee’s employees and their relatives. In his statement, Shri C.P.Jaishankar, accountant has confirmed that the cash deposited in these accounts belonged to the assessee. Other employees, Shri N. Sankaran, Smt. J. Baby, and Smt.
S. Premavathi have also confirmed the same in their sworn statements to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 6 -: and stated that their income tax returns were being filed by Shri C.
Lickmichand Singhvi. Further, the assessee in his statement has also accepted that on-money cash receipts were deposited into the bank accounts of the employees and their relatives. Based on these statements, the A.O made addition of cash deposits in the respective year in the assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The asssessee has raised jurisdictional issue, contending that no incriminating material pertaining to the relevant year was found, and the bank accounts standing in the names of employees/relatives did not relate to his transactions rather, these were accounts of loan creditors from whom loans were taken in his name/family members’ names/group concerns and were subsequently repaid by cheque/RTGS. The Ld. CIT(A), after examining the seized material, noted that the passbooks were seized from the assessee’s residence and the employees had stated that the accounts were opened by the assessee and used for depositing cash through Shri C.P. Jaishankar. Shri Jaishankar also admitted in his statement under section 132(4) of the Act that cash generated from the assessee’s real estate business was deposited in these accounts as per the assessee’s instructions. Other employees made similar statements. to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 7 -:
The assessee has also accepted that the transactions in these bank accounts were carried out for his own and his family members needs.
Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the A.O had incriminating material in his possession and jurisdiction u/s. 153A of the Act had been correctly assumed by the A.O. On merits, after examining the material and statements, the Ld CIT(A) held that the cash deposits belonged to the assessee , but directed only peak credit should be added , after examining the pattern of deposits and withdrawals.
The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee vehemently argued on the issue of jurisdiction and reiterated that the bank accounts in the names of employees and relatives belonged to them, therefore same cannot be taxed in the assessee’s hands.
7. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. These issues have already been adjudicated by this Tribunal vide order dated 25.11.2025 in to 642/Chny/2025, for A.Y 2010-11 to 2014-15 , wherein it was held as under: to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 8 -:
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the jurisdictional issue as under:
“6.1.2. On perusal of the submissions made by the appellant, it is seen that the main contention of the appellant against assumption of jurisdiction by the AO are as under. i. The bank accounts in which the cash was deposited do not belong to the appellant. ii. The amount of income which has escaped assessment is less than fifty lakh rupees.
Firstly, it is seen that the said cash deposits were made in the bank account of the appellant's employees and their relatives and the passbooks of all these accounts were found and seized from the appellant's residential premises. During the search proceedings, the employees had stated that the appellant had opened the bank accounts in their names and used the said accounts to deposit his unaccounted cash through his staff, Shri C P Jaishankar. Shri C P Jaishankar also admitted in his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that he had deposited the cash generated from the real estate business of the appellant in the said accounts as per direction of the appellant only. Other employees of the appellant like Shri N Sankaran, Smt J Baby and Smt S Premavathi also made similar deposition. Shri M Srinivasan, accountant of the appellant, in his sworn statement u/s 132(4) of the Act also stated that he had been working as an account of the appellant since 2007 and he used to get instruction from the appellant for booking excess expenses, booking of interest payment without actually payment, adjustment for real estate income, etc. The statements made by the employees were confirmed by the appellant himself in his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 02.11.2018 and also offered an additional income of Rs.3 crores to cover the issue of cash deposits in the employees' bank accounts. During the post-search proceedings also, the appellant had again offered an amount of Rs. 3 crores as additional income in his hands for the FY 2018-19 in respect of the cash deposits in accounts of various employees and also filed peak cash credit statement accepting the ownership of the cash deposits.ks the said bank accounts. The appellant has never denied the fact that the passbooke for the said accounts, in which the cash deposits were made, were found from the appellant's residential premises and the appellant has not furnished any explanatioff as to why the passbooks were kept with him. In fact, the appellant has himself accepted that the transactions in the said bank accounts were done by the appellant for his own and family members' use. Thus, even to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 9 -: though the said bank accounts de not belong to the appellant, the cash deposits in the said bank account belong to the appellant. Secondly, as per appellant, the amount of income which has escaped assessment is Rs. 19,91,000/- only and the said variation occurs on account of the cash deposits made during the FY 2011-12 relevant to AY 2012-13. Had there been such discrepancy, the appellant ought to have brought the same to the notice of the AO during the assessment proceedings. However, on perusal of the records, it is seen that during the assessment proceedings, the appellant had not made any such objection before the AO, whereas the AO after examining the cash deposits made in the bank accounts for the FY 2011-12 had found total cash deposit of Rs. 52,38,000/-Therefore, while issuing the notice u/s 153A for the year under consideration, the AO prima facie had in his possession documents or evidence which revealed that the income which had escaped assessment was likely to amount to more than fifty lakh rupees in aggregate in the relevant assessment years. Moreover, there was no submission or objection filed before the AO in the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the AO had correctly assumed jurisdiction for issuing notice u/s 153A of the Act for the year under consideration and issued notice u/s 153A for the AY 2009-10 to 2012-13. Hence, the additional ground raised by the appellant against assumption of jurisdiction by the AO is dismissed.
7.1 The undisputed fact is that bank passbooks in the names of the assessee’s employees and their relatives were found and seized from the assessee’s residence during the course of search. All the concerned employees, in their sworn statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, categorically stated that the said bank accounts were opened at the instance of the assessee and were used for depositing the assessee’s unaccounted cash. The staff member Shri C.P. Jaishankar also admitted that he deposited cash generated from the assessee’s real estate business into these accounts under the specific instructions of the assessee. These statements stand corroborated by the assessee’s own sworn statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, wherein he accepted ownership of the transactions and offered additional income of ₹3 crores to cover these cash deposits.
7.2 In view of the above clear factual matrix, we hold that the seized bank passbooks constitute incriminating material relatable to the assessee and that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the evidences in upholding the validity of initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act. We find no reason to interfere with the said finding. to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 10 -:
7.3 On merits, in paragraphs 6.2.2 and 6.2.3, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the cash deposited in the bank accounts pertained to the assessee and directed the A.O to compute the peak credit. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:
“6.2.2 In the appeal proceedings, the appellant had taken a stand that the bank accounts maintained in the name of the employees and their relatives are not related to the appellant's transaction. These persons are actually the loan creditors from whom the appellant had taken loans either in his name or in the name of family members or group concerns which were repaid subsequently by cheque/RTGS. The other transactions in the said bank accounts are the personal income of those persons which are not having bearing on the income of the appellant. This contention of the appellant cannot be accepted for the reason that the bank passbooks were seized from the residential premises of the appellant and both the employees and appellant himself had admitted in their sworn-statements that the appellant alone opened the said accounts and used to deposit the unaccounted cash available with him and immediately thereafter transferred by way of cheque/RTGS to him or his family members or his concerns. On examination of the bank statements, it is also noted that the above-mentioned fact is correct. Moreover, the appellant himself had filed a peak cash credit statement before the DDIT(Inv.) and explained that the entire cash credits are not his income and only the peak credit of the respective year alone to be considered as his income. Hence, the appellant cannot claim in the appeal proceedings that these are all genuine loan creditors and there cannot be any income arising on account of these credits in the bank accounts in the name of the employees and their relatives. 6.2.3. Now, the only issue to be decided is that to find out the correct income arising from the cash deposited in the bank accounts, whether the entire cash credits are to be considered as income as adopted by the AO or only the peak cash credit as submitted by the appellant is to be adopted. On perusal of the bank account statements of these employees and their relatives, it is noted that the cash is being deposited and immediately thereafter there is a transfer by way of cheque/RTGS to either the appellant or family members or group concerns bank accounts. Thereafter, there are transfer by way of cheque/RTGS from the appellant or family members or group concerns to these accounts again and immediately followed by cash withdrawal. This pattern has been observed in almost all the bank accounts for the entire period of more than 10 years. On these facts and circumstances, the addition of entire cash deposits as the income for the respective AY will not be a right approach or correct method to find out the income of the appellant. Hence, I am of the opinion that after examination of the nature of transactions in the said bank accounts where there are periodical cash deposits and withdrawals facilitated by the appellant for his or his relatives or concern's favour, adopting the peak cash credit will be the right approach to work out the unaccounted income arising on account of these bank accounts. In this regard, the appellant had also made a submission, without prejudice, to consider the peak cash credit worked out by him in the submissions dated 25.11.2024. Subsequently, the appellant had to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 11 -: modified the peak cash credit to the extent of approximately 2 lakhs on 12.12.2024 on account certain omissions. The peak cash credit statement submitted by the appellant bank accounts of the employees and their relatives as inflow of cash and the withdrawals from the said accounts as outflow of cash for the period commencing from 12.04.2011 to 06.02.2019. In this regard, the AO is directed to verify the peak cash credit working submitted by the appellant in the appeal proceedings with the said bank statements available in the seized material, thereafter, work out the correct peak cash credit to be adopted for the respective year(s) and tax the peak credit of the respective year(s) as income arising from these bank accounts for the respective year(s). While carrying out this exercise, the AO is directed to keep in mind the following and work out the correct peak cash credit: i. The appellant had prepared the peak for the period 12.04.2011 to 06.02.2019, whereas, the AO had considered the cash credits for the AY 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 as worked out in the assessment order. In this regard, the cash credits for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11, which the appellant did not consider in his working, needs to be verified with the seized bank statements and the peak cash credit statement has to be re-worked accordingly after verifying with the appellant. ii. The AO had considered the cash credits found from the bank accounts in the name of Shri Sudarshan & Shri Selvam for the AY 2013-14. On examination of the working of peak cash credit submitted by the appellant, it was noted that the appellant did not consider the corresponding deposits from the bank accounts of Shri Sudarsan and Shri Selvam. It is only a random verification carried out by me. In this regard, the AO is directed to examine and verify the seized bank statements and the respective deposits and withdrawals vis-à-vis peak cash credit statement submitted by the appellant for the entire period from AY 2009-10 to 2019-20 and work out the peak cash credit after verifying with the appellant. iii. The appellant is also directed to provide the peak cash credit working which was submitted before me on 12.12.2024. The appellant is also directed to furnish any other necessary details called for by the AO in the verification process to work out the correct peak credit for the respective years. iv. After completing the above exercise, the AO is directed to adopt the peak cash credit for the respective years as income for that AY and delete the balance addition made on account of treating the entire cash credit as an income for the respective years. With these directions, these ground raised by the appellant are partly allowed.”
7.4 The Ld. CIT(A), after detailed examination of the transaction pattern reflected in the seized bank accounts, has recorded a clear finding that the cash deposits in these accounts pertain to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 12 -: himself had earlier furnished peak cash credit workings before the Investigation Wing, accepting that only the peak balance represents the income component. Considering the continuous and repeated pattern of cash deposits followed by immediate transfers to the assessee or his family concerns and subsequent withdrawals, the Ld. CIT(A) held that taxing the entire deposits would not be appropriate, and therefore directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the peak cash credit for the respective years after proper verification. 7.5 We find no infirmity in the well-reasoned conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A). The directions issued for adopting peak credit, after due verification with seized material, are fair, justified, and in accordance with settled principles. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld.”
9. As the grounds have already been decided above, respectfully following the above decision of the Coordinate Bench, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, Grounds 1 to 11 of the assessee are dismissed.
Ground No. 12 – Disallowance of 50% of Agricultural Income: 10. The Assessing Officer, in the order passed u/s 153A of the Act, treated the agricultural income disclosed by the assessee as unexplained money u/s 68 of the Act, on the ground that the assessee failed to substantiate the same. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 50% of the agricultural income declared.
The Ld. A.R has submitted that the assessee has been consistently declaring agricultural income since A.Y. 2009-10, and the to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 13 -: same has been accepted hence, the agricultural income cannot be disturbed in proceedings u/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material.
The Ld. Departmental Representative argued that addition made by A.O of agriculture income should be sustained as the assessee has not furnished details regarding agriculture income with documentary evidence before the A.O.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the matter in detail as under:
“6.2.3. Firstly, it is a fact that the assessment year under consideration is an unabated assessment. Secondly, it is evident from the discussion in the earlier paragraphs that the AO had incriminating material seized during the course of search vide ANN/MS/LAS/B&D/S-2 which shows that the appellant had made unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts. Thus, the AO was in possession of incriminating material and, therefore, the AO had jurisdiction to assess the 'total income' taking into consideration the income declared in the returns also. Therefore, the first contention of the appellant is contrary to the facts of the case and the AO had jurisdiction to assess the total income of the appellant on the basis of the details available in the return of income. 6.2.4. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant was asked to submit the details of agricultural income along with chitta, adangal etc. in respect of the agricultural land. In response, the appellant has furnished the details of agricultural income as under:
Name Of the Corp Area Under Cultivation Quanity Sale Amount to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 14 -:
Banana Plant Chinnakallupalli Land 16.5 Ton 60500 1.43 Acres Ground Nut Chinnakallupalli Land 1.2 Ton 49600 1.43 Acres Ground Nut Vellore Land 0.29 0.25 Ton 29900 Acres Ground Nut Minnur Land 1.9275 1.75 Ton 85400 Acres Banana Plant Chinnakallupalli Land 11.75 Ton 49700 1.03 Acres Paddy Chinnakallupalli Land 0.65 Ton 26000 1.03 Acres Coconut Tree Balur Land 10.49 Acres 1250 Nos 375000 Coconut Tree Chengilikuppam 2.5 220 Nos 61500 Land Acres Ground Nut Vinnamangalam 0.55 0.75 Ton 42000 Land Acres Coconut Tree Chengilikuppam Land 325 Nos 97500 3.5 Acres DE Coconut Tree Nekundhi Land 3.50 350 Nos 105000 Acres Paddy Minnur Land 1.9275 1.90 Ton 43030 Acres Cocunut Tree Alinjikuppam Land 1300 Nos 390000 14.24 Acres 1415130
The appellant has also submitted patta with respect to land holding in the name of the appellant as well as family members. However, the appellant has not furnished copy of chitta, adangal etc to verify any crop was cultivated in the said land. The appellant could not furnish any bill/invoice etc to corroborate the sales of agricultural produce or the expenses incurred in respect of agricultural activities. Even if it is accepted that the appellant and his family members own agricultural lands, the appellant has not furnished complete documentary evidence to prove that actually any agricultural activity was done in the said land. The only evidence submitted was the patta which states that the appellant and his family members are owner of both wet and dry lands. On this facts and circumstances, the entire agricultural income cannot be verified and accepted as arising out of genuine agricultural activity. At the same time, the holding of agricultural land is also quite substantial and some amount of genuine agricultural income might have also been earned by the appellant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that 50% of the agricultural income may be considered as arising out of agricultural sources and the remaining 50% is to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 15 -: unexplained for want of evidences in support of earning the agricultural income. Hence, 50% of the addition of Rs. 14,15,130/- which works out to Rs.7,07,565/- is deleted and the balance amount of Rs.7,07,565/- is sustained. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the appellant are partly allowed.”
14. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT, Central-3, vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) has observed that as para 14(iii) of the above judgment it has been held that in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed , even in cases of unabated/completed assessment, the A.O would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the A.O including the income declared in the return. He further held that only in cases no incriminating material is unearthed during the search the A.O cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material alone in respect of completed assessment / unabated assessments. The Ld.
CIT(A) therefore held that there was incriminating material seized during the course of search which shows that the assessee had made unexplained cash deposit in the bank accounts and therefore, the A.O had jurisdiction to assess the total income taking into consideration the income declared in the return also. We find no infirmity in the finding to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 16 -: of Ld. CIT(A) on this account , accordingly the arguments of Ld. A.R that the A.O does not have jurisdiction to add the agriculture income is rejected .
As regards the merit of the case in sustaining 50% of agricultural income by the Ld. CIT(A), it is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has duly recorded the landholdings of the assessee and the crops stated to have been cultivated on such lands. However, since the assessee failed to furnish supporting documents such as chitta, adangal, etc., to substantiate the actual cultivation and agricultural operations, the Ld. CIT(A) held that only 50% of the agricultural income declared could be accepted as arising from agricultural sources and treated the remaining 50% as unexplained for want of evidence. We find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and, accordingly, the same is upheld.
ITA Nos.644 to 647/Chny/2025:
We find that the issues involved in the assessee’s appeals for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are identical to those adjudicated in A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, our findings and conclusions shall apply mutatis mutandis to these years to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 17 -: also. Therefore, the appeals in to 647/Chny/2025 is dismissed. to 971/Chny/2025: 17. The Revenue has filed appeals for A.Y 2016-17 to 2019-20 against challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) directing the A.O to tax peak credit of cash deposit in the bank accounts of the assessee’s employees as cash deposited was on-money received in the immovable property transaction.
The Ld. DR has argued that the peak credit would not be right approach to work out the unaccounted income of the assessee as the multiple transactions are involved such as cheque payments, RTGS transfer, withdrawals with assessee’s family members and group concerns. The Ld. DR has also argued the cash deposits in the bank accounts were received as on money on the immovable property transaction and therefore the entire cash deposits are to be taxed.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.2.3 for A.Y 2009-10 has given the detailed reason for adopting peak credit and we are in complete agreement with the reasoning given by Ld. CIT(A) for to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 18 -: adopting peak credit. As we do not find any infirmity in the direction of Ld. CIT(A), the same is upheld and this ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed.
20. The Revenue has also challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) accepting the 50% of the agriculture income declared by the assessee in the return of income and confirming only the 50% of agriculture income as unexplained income though no documentary evidence to substantiate the agriculture income was produced. The Ld. DR has argued that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have allowed 50% agriculture income disclosed in the return of income as assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate the agriculture income.
The Ld. AR has argued that the assessee held agriculture land for which evidences were produced before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR also submitted the assessee has been showing agriculture income since 2009-10 in the return of income and the same has been accepted by Department earlier.
We find that the assessee has submitted detailed particulars of agricultural income, including the name of the crops, area under to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 19 -: cultivation, quantity produced, and the sale proceeds. The assessee has also furnished copies of pattas relating to the landholdings standing in the names of the assessee and his family members. It is further noted that the assessee has consistently declared agricultural income in earlier assessment years, and the same has been accepted by the Department as under:
S. No. A.Y Income Returned 1. 2009-10 4,67,000 2. 2010-11 4,67,700 3. 2011-12 6,67,427 4. 2012-13 10,29,817 5. 2013-14 10,25,600 6. 2014-15 14,12,272 7. 2015-16 14,15,130 8. 2016-17 10,25,420 9. 2017-18 9,74,800 10. 2018-19 9,78,450 11. 2019-20 10,24,870
The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed 50% of the agricultural income on the ground that the assessee had not furnished chitta, adangal, or similar revenue records to conclusively verify the crops cultivated on the land held by the assessee and his family members.
Since we have already adjudicated the issue relating to agricultural income in the assessee’s appeals above, and upheld the order of Ld. CIT in confirming 50% of agriculture income as genuine, to 647/Chny/2025 & to 971/Chny/2025 Shri Singhvi Lickmi Chand :- 20 -: the revenue grounds stand adjudicated. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced on 05th day of December, 2025 at Chennai.