Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee made cash deposits in a bank account totaling Rs. 31,72,717/- (and later stated total deposit Rs. 43,35,039/-). The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated specific portions (Rs. 13,47,736/- and Rs. 14,85,996/-) as income from unexplained sources. The assessee contended that these deposits originated from agricultural income (sale of wheat, paddy, sugarcane, and poplar trees) and re-deposits of previously withdrawn funds.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee provided voluminous evidence, including 'H' Forms, sale receipts, and certificates from cooperative societies, to substantiate the agricultural income. Investigations conducted by the AO under Section 131 also confirmed the sale of poplar trees. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had proved the sources of the deposits, and therefore, the lower authorities were not justified in making the additions, which were consequently deleted.
Key Issues
The primary issues were whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for unexplained cash deposits were justified, given the assessee's explanation of agricultural income and re-deposits, and whether principles of natural justice were followed.
Sections Cited
131
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19-04-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
The Assessee in this appeal has taken the following Grounds of Appeal :-
701-Chd-2024 Jaswant Singh Yamunanagar. 2 1 That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in assessing cash deposits of Rs. 14,85,996/- as income from other source of income.
2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in making additions on basis of suspicious and without considering evidences and materials produced on record by assessee.
3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO of relying upon third party enquiries and statements collected behind back of assessee and in not providing an opportunity of cross examination to the assessee.
4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of assessee without adherence to principles of natural justice.
5. That the assesses leave to add, amend, alter, Substitute or revise any of the above mentioned grounds before the disposal of appeal.
The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing officer (in short, “the AO”) in making addition of Rs. 13,47,736/- and Rs. 14,85,996/- by treating the cash deposits by the Assessee in the bank account as income of the Assessee from unexplained sources.
The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing during the year had deposited a sum of Rs. 31,72,717/- in his bank account. On being asked to explain the sources of deposits, the Assessee explained that the Assessee along
701-Chd-2024 Jaswant Singh Yamunanagar. 3 with his family members (father and brothers) owned 60 acres of agricultural land. That the amount in question was deposited out of agricultural income on sale of wheat, paddy and sugar cane produce. Further, the assessee during the year also sold poplar trees, with the total income of the Assessee during the year amounting to Rs. 19,74,215/-. Further, the Assessee had withdrawn Rs. 23,60,814/- from his bank account which was re-deposited. That the total deposit during the year of Rs. 43,35,039/- was out of agricultural income and out of re-deposit of the amount withdrawn earlier. Learned counsel, in this respect, placed reliance on the cash flow statement.
5. The Ld. A.O., however, observed that the Assessee could not substantiate with reliable evidences of the receipt of the agricultural income. He, however, noted that there was cash deposit of the amount on different dates in the bank account of the Assessee. He, therefore, treated the deposits as unexplained credits of the assessee.
5.1 Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the additions so made by the Ld. AO.
5.2 Before this Tribunal, the Ld. counsel for the Assessee has relied upon the various documents to submit that so far as the agricultural income out of sale of wheat and paddy crop was concerned, the Assessee has produced before the lower authorities the Certificate ‘H’ Form from the Market Committee, Ladwa.
Copy of the same had been placed at page 42 of the Paper Book. Learned counsel has explained that the Assessee Jaswant Singh along with his brother
701-Chd-2024 Jaswant Singh Yamunanagar. 4 Dharm Singh and father Roshan Lal had 60 acres of land. That the Assessee is only educated person in his family and hence, manage the income/cash related matters including the cash receipt on sale of crops etc. He has explained from ‘H” form that the crop was sold in the name of his brother Dharm Singh through commission agents M/S Dharm Chand Ramesh Kumar, Ladwa. The AO, however, rejected this contention on the ground that the sale of crop was registered in the name of brother Dharm Singh and not in the name of the Assessee. However, there is no denial of the fact that the agricultural income on sale of crops was received in the name of the Assessee and there was no separate account in the name of his brother Dharm Singh. Similarly, there is no denial that the family owned 60 acres of agricultural land. The Assessee had given the details to show that the assessee and its family members received Rs. 9,65,000/- on sale of wheat and paddy crops. Further, the Assessee had claimed to have sold popular trees worth Rs. 5,93,560/-. Learned counsel in this respect has relied upon the sale receipt vide which the popular trees were sold to M/S Mahabir Timber Traders. The AO has thoroughly investigated the said sale transaction by summoning the purchaser u/s 131 of the Act and his statement was recorded. In his statement Shri Saheb Singh, Prop. Mahabir Timber Traders stated on oath not only confirmed the purchase of poplar trees from the Assessee but also gave the details of further sale of the trees/wood to M/S Haryana Woo, Village Jorian, which is proprietorship concern of Shri Gulshan Taneja. Therefore, the sale of poplar trees has been proved by the Assessee.
701-Chd-2024 Jaswant Singh Yamunanagar. 5 Further, the assessee had also produced Certificate from the Radaur Cane Growers Co-op Society, Radaur through which the sugarcane crop was sold, which also confirmed the sale of sugarcane crop to the sugar mills and confirmed that the Assessee alongwith brother and father had received Rs. 6,73,890/- on the sale of sugar cane crop. The Ld. A.O. verified the above contention also by calling upon the information from the concerned sugar mills.
The assessee had placed voluminous evidence on the file to prove the agricultural income as well as re-deposit of the amount out of bank withdrawals.
4. Ld. D.R. could not rebut the aforesaid factual evidence on the file regarding the source of the deposits in the bank account of the assessee.
4.1. In view of the above discussion, the lower authorities were not justified in making/confirming the impugned addition into the income of the assessee.
The impugned additions made by the AO, thus are not sustainable and the same are ordered to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed.