Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the addition made by the AO for AY 2017-18. The AO reopened the assessment due to large cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, which the assessee claimed were from the sale of Casuarina crops. The AO, relying on Google Earth Pro data, disbelieved the assessee's explanation.
Held
The Tribunal held that authenticated documents like the Tahsildar's certificate and the Dean of Forestry's report cannot be ignored in favor of unverified Google Earth Pro images. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
Key Issues
Whether the AO was justified in disregarding authenticated documents and relying solely on Google Earth Pro data to estimate agricultural income and make additions.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 142(1), 69A, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 26.03.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 25.03.2022.
The A.O has reopened the assessment for the reason that there was a huge cash deposits of Rs. 1,12,46,000/- and time deposit of Rs.
20,99,384/-, but the assessee has not filed return of income. The assessee did not file return of income even in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Subsequently, a reply was filled in response to notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act stating that assessee is seasonal agriculturist and she gets only agriculture income and therefore, has not filed return of income. The assessee also submitted that she realized amount Rs.93 Lakhs from agriculture activities and the cash deposit is out of agriculture receipts and time deposits are from withdrawal from the deposits. The assessee in support of her reply submitted land account statement depicting 31 acres of land and the income certificate from Tahsildhar stating the income of Rs. 93 Lakhs from harvesting of Casuarina. The A.O made enquiry from Dean of Forestry Department of Forest College and Research Institute, TNAU, Mettupalayam, who estimated the income from Casuarina crop at Rs. 67 Lakhs. The A.O made enquiry through Google Earth Pro and concluded that the assessee has not cultivated Casuarina crop. The A.O therefore did not accept assessee’s explanation that cash deposit in the bank account was out of sale proceeds of Casuarina crop and estimated agriculture income from normal crops like paddy, ground nut, tapioca, blackgram etc at Rs. 15,50,000/-. and held that out of a total deposit of Rs.1,18,46,000/-, Rs. 15,50,000/- is explained and added the balance of Rs. 1,02,96,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The A.O also added interest income of Rs. 1,56,018/-. On appeal, the assessee made a written statement stating that bank account was operated by her husband Mr. Sundaramoorthy, who was actively involved in agriculture after his retirement in 2010. Subsequently, on demise of her husband the account was converted into single account.
1. The assessee explained that the source of cash deposit was out of the sale from Casuarina crop. However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition stating that the assessee has not furnished any substantial written submission or documentary evidence in support of her ground of appeal challenging the addition.
4. Before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the source of cash deposit from sale of Casuarina crop. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has cultivated Casuarina crop over a period of four years in 31 acres of land owned by her deceased husband and the crop harvest took place in April, 2016, which led to deposit of cash into the bank account well before the demonetization period. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee in support her stand of earning agriculture income has placed on record the certificate obtained from Tahsildar, Villupuram and further placed on record the revenue records for substantiating the availability of cash from agricultural activity. The Ld. AR further submitted that the A.O had obtained report from Dean of Forestry Department, who has certified that the assessee could have earned income of around Rs. 67 Lakhs. However, the A.O ignoring the report of the Dean of Forestry Department has proceeded solely on the data from Google Earth Pro. The Ld. AR has submitted that the Google Earth Data is not authenticated in contradiction to the authenticated revenue record and the certificate issued by the competent authority i.e., Tahsildar Villupuram. The Ld. AR has relied on the order of ITAT, dated 11.02.2022 in support of her contention. The Ld. AR has submitted that if the report of Dean of Forestry Department and above information are taken consideration then the remaining component is only to the extent of Rs. 11 Lakhs as against addition of Rs. 1,02,96,000/- made by A.O.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of A.O and Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR further argued that the A.O has examined the data from Google Earth Pro and concluded that there was no tree on the land.
We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has deposited cash of Rs.1,18,46,000/- in her bank account and explained the source of cash of Rs.93 lakhs from sale of Casuarina crop and the balance was from withdrawals from the same bank account. In support, assessee furnished land records and an income certificate from the Tahsildar.
The A.O, also obtained report from the Dean of Forestry Department, who estimated agricultural income at Rs.67 lakhs. However, the A.O rejected the report of Tahashildar and the Dean of Forestry Department that assessee has earned income from Casuarina crop, relying on Google Earth Pro data and estimated agriculture income at Rs 15,50,000. We are of opinion that the authenticated documents such as the certificate from the Tahsildar and the expert report of the Dean of Forestry Department cannot be ignored in preference to unverified Google Earth Pro images. We, therefore set aside the order LD CIT(A)/A.O and direct the A.O to pass fresh assessment order on the basis of report of the Dean of Forestry Department available on record, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail. In light of above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 29th day of September, 2025 at Chennai.