SUNITA OJHA,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), CHENNAI

The only ground of appeal in this appeal of assessee is against the addition of cash deposit of Rs. 22,57,000/- in the bank account, rejecting assessee’s explanation that source of cash deposit was agriculture income.

The assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 12.10.2017 by declaring total income of Rs. 22,21,930/-. The assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 22,57,000/- during demonetization period.

The assessee has explained the cash deposit out of agriculture proceeds. However, the A.O has rejected the explanation as the assessee only submitted the proof of land holding, but has not submitted evidence of any proceed of agriculture income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition as the assessee only submitted a copy of land document, but has not submitted the details how the agriculture income earned by it, the kind of crop it was grown, the various details pertaining to irrigation used in the said agricultural land, modus operandi of the sales made of such agricultural produce, etc. The Ld. CIT(A) also held that the assessee has not justified how the cash was generated in Bikaner region from sale of agriculture produce and cash was deposited in Chennai.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has argued that the assessee has been filing return of income since 2005- 06 including the agriculture income, and the cash deposited is out of sale of agricultural produce. The Ld. AR has submitted additional evidence in the form of bills for agriculture produce sold, which was not furnished before the lower authorities, supporting her contention that cash deposit was from agriculture income.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 22,18,107/- in the return of income. The assessee has explained the source of cash deposit in the bank account out of sale of agricultural produce. The A.O/Ld. CIT(A) have not accepted the assessee’s explanation, as the assessee has only submitted the evidence of land holding and has not provided any supporting evidence for the agricultural income. In the return of income, the assessee has reported gross agricultural receipts of Rs. 25,90,247/- and claimed expenditure of Rs.3,72,140/- on agriculture, resulting in net agricultural income of Rs.22,18,107/-. The additional evidence of agricultural produce sold was not submitted before the lower authorities. Therefore, we are of the opinion that these documents need examination by the A.O . We, accordingly remit the matter back to the file of the A.O for denovo assessment. We also direct the assessee to appear before the A.O on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for her fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.