SIVAKUMAR,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-3. PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

This appeal is filed with a delay of 57 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay stating the reasons in support of an affidavit. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, I find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the AY 2011-12 and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 15.11.2018 determining total income of the assessee at ₹.10,01,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. On appeal, after considering the written submissions, confirmation letter from assessee’s father and remand report obtained from the Assessing Officer, wherein, receipt of gift is restricted to ₹.2,00,000/-, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹.8,01,000/-.

Having heard both the parties and upon perusal of the written submissions against the remand report reproduced at page 5 of the impugned order, the case of the assessee is that the assessee’s father was an illiterate, agriculturist and his primary source of income was from agriculture. Out of accumulated agricultural income, sale proceeds of agricultural land and by withdrawing ₹.2,00,000/- from his bank account, the assessee’s father gifted ₹.10,00,000/- in cash to the assessee and the assessee deposited the same in his bank account on 07.07.2010. There is no dispute on the sale of agricultural land by assessee’s father. The authorities below have not disputed on furnishing of confirmation letter of assessee’s father and brothers of the assessee. I find the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to cash deposit on 07.07.2010 on the ground that the assessee’s father sold property and received sale consideration through banking channel, but, however, the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) disbelieved the deposit of cash is emanating from sale consideration as well as accumulation of agricultural income. Further, the assessee’s father also confirmed the said deposit is out of sale consideration derived from the sale of his agricultural land as well as accumulated agricultural income. The Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) disbelieved that the assessee received gift from his father out of sale consideration of agricultural land and accumulated agricultural income. The ld. CIT(A) also doubted the authenticity of confirmation letter of gift of ₹.10,00,000/-, which was given in 2019 during the course of remand proceedings. I find that the submissions of the assessee is acceptable and there is no contrary evidence brought on record that the assessee deposited ₹.10,00,000/- not out of sale consideration received from his father out of sale of agricultural land. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.