HARKESH SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBALA

That the order of the learned CIT (A) under National Faceless Appeal Centre is arbitrary, illegal and against the fact.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer and just passed an order without making any inquiry which is without following the principle of natural justice.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- by treating the cash deposits as unexplained money.

That the Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, add or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeals.

Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment in the present case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of information that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.60,02,625/- in his savings bank account maintained with the State Bank of India during the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to the Assessment Year 2011- 12. In compliance with the notices issued pursuant to the reopening, the assessee filed his return of income declaring agricultural income of Rs.1,28,560/- only. 3.1 During the course of Assessment proceedings, the Appellant contended that out of total cash deposits of Rs. 60,02,625/-, he has made cash deposits of Rs. 25,00,000/- out of sale of agriculture land in the name of his brother namely Sh. Bhag Singh, Rs. 22,00,000/- was deposited out of sale of his own agriculture land and Rs. 13,02,625/- was deposited out of cash withdrawal from bank. The Ld. AO has accepted Rs. 22,00,000/- and Rs. 13,02,625/- but did not accept Rs. 25,00,000/- that received out of sale of Appellant's brother agriculture land. 3.2 The Learned Assessing Officer, however, accepted the explanation only to the extent of Rs.22,00,000/- and Rs.13,02,625/- and rejected the explanation regarding Rs.25,00,000/- claimed to have been received from the sale of agricultural land belonging to the Appellant’s brother, thereby treating the same as unexplained and making an addition to the income of the assessee. 4. Against the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, affirmed the findings and addition made by the Assessing Officer without granting the relief sought by the assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before us.

During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have failed to properly appreciate the evidences already on record—namely, the sale deed, affidavit, and bank details establishing that the impugned cash deposit originated from genuine agricultural-land sale proceeds belonging to Sh. Bhag Singh. 6.1 Ld. AR further submitted that despite the specific request made by him, the Ld. AO did not summon Sh. Bhag Singh nor verify the sale transaction from the Sub-