RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR PANKAJ GOYAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BHIWADI, ALWAR

3.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench has no objection to accept it as it has connection with the issue of appeal of the assessee. Hence, the application for admission of additional ground is admitted.

RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI 4.1 From the grounds of appeal as well as additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee, it is noticed that the main grievances as emerges out from the appeal filed by the assessee are as under:-

1. Confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.8,53,650/- (Rs. 15,95,000 minus Rs. 7,41,350/-) 2. restricting the agriculture income only of Rs.7,41,350/- as against disclosed by the assessee at Rs. 13,41,350/-.’’ 5.1 Apropos grounds of appeal (supra), it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.8,53,650/- by observing at para 10. 5 to 10.6 of his order as under:- ‘’10.5 Further, I find that the case was reopened due to cash deposit of Rs 24,25,000/-during the year under consideration and notices were issued to the appellant to explain the sources of income. Accordingly, the appellant submitted his manual return without quoting his PAN resulted in invalid ITR, wherein he declared total income of Rs 1,56,470 & exempt agricultural income of Rs. 13,41,500/-. The AO based on record available with him find cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 8,30,000/- is out of earlier withdrawal from bank in the case of agricultural income, he restricted it to the extent of Rs. 7,41,350/-based on land possessed by assessee as no such documentary evidence like bills of sale of crops, proof of purchase of seeds/ fertilizers etc and any other documentary evidences in support of agricultural income were furnished by assessee. But it is noticed that the AO has not established that the accepted agricultural income was directly credited in the bank account of appellant, therefore, it cannot be a part of cash deposit. It is well settled law that the burden lies over the appellant to prove the fact by submitting documentary evidence. But it is evident from record that the appellant is totally failed to prove his assertion by submitting venflable documentary evidence. Only mere contention cannot be sufficient to given force to his contention. But it is also fact that the appellant has declared his agricultural income to substantiate his cash deposit in bank. In this situation, if AO were to restrict agricultural income to some extent, the same should be considered as part source of cash deposit in question, and balance agricultural income of Rs. 6,00,000/- should not be considered as income from other sources 10.6 In view of the above discussion, I have arrived at the opinion that the AO was justified in restricting agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 7,41,350/-, RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI but not justified in treating balance agricultural income of Rs. 6,00,000/- as income from other sources. Also, the accepted agricultural income should be treated as part source of cash deposit. Hence, unexplained cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 8,53,650/- [Rs. 15,95,000-Rs. 7,41,350] is sustained. Accordingly ground No. 3 is partly allowed.’’ 5.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed following detailed written submission with the prayer to delete the addition ofRs.8,53,650/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A)

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: - ‘’The assessee is an individual and main source of his income is agriculture. As the assessee was not enjoying taxable income , he was not filing returns of income. However, during the year under consideration, notice u/s 148 was issued on 29/3/2017. This notice was not received by the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 22/9/2017. In response, return of income was filed on 27/09/2017 disclosing income of Rs. 1,56,468/- and agricultural income of Rs. 13,41,500/-. Copy of return so filed along with computation of income is available on Paper Book Page No.1-11. The Learned Assessing Officer has treated the return as invalid on the ground that PAN was not quoted. The action of the Learned Assessing Officer is not in accordance with law. He has not quoted any section under which the return could be treated as invalid in the absence of quoting PAN. Subsequently, the Learned Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) on 06/12/2017. However, the same was not received by the assessee, as such, no response could be filed. Consequently, the Learned Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s 144 on 22/12/2017, determining total income at Rs. 23,76,700/-., making the following additions :- a. Unexplained cash deposit in bank Rs.15,95,000/- b. Agricultural income treated as Income from other sources Rs. 6,00,000/- Aggrieved with the order of the Learned Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A), vide appellate order dated 05/01/2024, deleted the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- of agricultural income treated as income from other sources. Further, the Learned CIT(A) also granted benefit of Rs.7,41,350/- accepted as agricultural income as source of deposit of cash in bank and, thus, the addition of Rs. 15,95,000/- was reducted to Rs. 8,53,650/-. The Learned CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in determining agricultural income at Rs. 7,41,350/- only as against claim of the assessee of Rs. RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI 13,41,350/-. The Learned CIT(A) has also sustained the addition of Rs. 8,53,650/- out of addition of Rs. 15,95,000/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash deposited in the bank account.

Aggrieved with the order of the Learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. It is further submitted that while filing appeal on 05/05/2025, inadvertently, the following ground of appeal could not be taken. The additional ground now being taken arises out of the order of the Learned CIT(A) and does not require any facts to substantiate the same. The additional ground now taken goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, the admission of the additional ground is imperative for discharge of justice in the case. The Hon'ble ITAT is humbly requested to kindly admit the additional ground, which is being discussed first. Additional Ground No.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in accepting agricultural income only of Rs. 7,41,350/- as against disclosed by the assessee at Rs. 13,41,350/-. In the case of the assessee, while filing the return of income, agricultural income was disclosed of Rs. 13,41,350/-. The Learned Assessing Officer, after finding out the land holding of the assessee from land revenue department of Rajasthan, that assessee was holding 7.05 hectres of land, allowed agricultural income to the extent of Rs.7,41,350/- and balance Rs. 6,00,000/- was disallowed.

It is submitted that the entire action of the Learned Assessing Officer is based on conjectures. He has not conducted any field inquiries, nor has brought any material on record to restrict the agricultural income to Rs. 7,41,350/- as against Rs. 13,41,350/- claimed by the assessee. The action of the Learned Assessing Officer is assailed as under :- a. Details of Khasragirdawri disclose sowing of Sarson, wheat, millet and barley It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer restricted the agricultural income to Rs. 7,41,350/- purely on guess work. The assessee is now furnishing copy of khasragirdawri for the Samvat Year 2069, 2070, 2071, 2072, which discloses that the assessee was having crops of mustard, wheat, millet. Mustard is a cash crop and yields good return from the agricultural land. Copy of khasragirdawri is available on Paper Book Page No..12-15. This is the only source of the assessee. It is further submitted that on 3/6/2015, the assessee was also granted loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- for agricultural purposes by Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Branch Tapukra.

RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI Copy of the sanction letter of loan is available on Paper Book Page No.16-17. This establishes that assessee was fully engaged in agricultural activities and was making substantial investments for having good agricultural income. The income disclosed by the assessee was fair and true. The same deserved to be accepted. There was no reason for the Learned Assessing Officer to restrict the same. b. Agricultural income accepted in A.Y. 2011-12 completed u/s 143(3) It is further submitted that in the subsequent assessment year, 2011-12, the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 16,25,000/- and the same was accepted in assessment completed u/s 143(3), vide order dated 17/12/2018. A copy of assessment order is available on Paper Book Page No.18-19. It is further submitted that during the A.Y. 2011-12 also, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 14,50,000/- in bank and the same was also accepted. It is submitted that the source of cash deposited in bank is agricultural income only. It is further submitted that the copy of bank account with PNB also disclosed that assessee deposited Rs. 13,00,000/- in cash on 26/9/2008. The submission of the assessee is that it is a regular feature in the case of the assessee of depositing cash in bank and the source of the same is agricultural income. The cash deposited in bank of Rs. 13,41,500/- during the A.Y. 2010-11, which is under consideration, is not either a new or a unique feature. Both in the preceding assessment year as well as in the succeeding assessment year, the assessee has deposited cash of the same magnitude, i.e. Rs. 14,25,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs. 13,00,000/- in A.Y. 2009-10. Keeping these facts in view, the cash deposited in the bank account amounting to Rs. 13,41,000/- in A.Y. 2010-11 deserves to be accepted, being fully from agricultural income. The agricultural income also deserves to be accepted as disclosed by the assessee. c. Source of deposit of cash in bank is fully explained It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer treated cash deposits of Rs. 13,41,350/- as unexplained. However, in appeal, the Learned CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 7,41,350/- on account of funds available of agricultural income as accepted by the Learned Assessing Officer. Thus, the unexplained deposit in cash after the order of the Learned CIT(A) remains only of Rs. 8,53,650/-. In the above regard, it is submitted that the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 13,41,350/-. The assessee has now furnished sufficient documentary evidences of land holdings, of crops grown on the land and also the major fact that agricultural income amounting to Rs. 14,25,000/- was accepted in assessment order completed u/s 143(3), copy of which is available on Paper book page cited supra, all these evidences establish beyond doubt that the assessee enjoyed agricultural income as disclosed at Rs. 13,41,350/-. Thus, against the unexplained deposit, which remains at Rs. 8,53,650/- credit is required of the agricultural income not accepted by the Learned Assessing Officer as well as by the Learned CIT(A) of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The assessee was also having income from animal husbandry disclosed at Rs. 1,31,240/-, which has also been accepted by the Learned RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the assessee that the assessee was having sufficient cash exceeding Rs. 5 lac on account of savings and income from animal husbandry. It is out of these savings kept at home for purposes of emergency that assessee deposited thebalance amount of Rs. 2,53,650/-. Thus, the entire cash deposited in the bank is explained as under :- (a) Addition after order of CIT(A) Rs.8,53,650/- (b) Sources (i) Rs.6,00,000 Agricultural income available not Accepted by the Learned A.O/CIT(A) (ii) Out of animal husbandry income Rs.2,53,650 Rs.8,53,650/- Thus, the cash deposited in bank are fully explained. The Hon'ble ITAT is humbly requested to accept the agricultural income disclosed by the assessee atRs. 13,41,350/- and also delete the addition sustained by the Learned CIT(A) of Rs. 8,53,650/-/-. Now the assessee takes up the regular grounds as under :- Ground No.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the validity order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the IT Act which was completed without serving any notice to the assessee and without providing any opportunity to the assessee.

The assessee is basically an agriculturist and lives in a small villageJhiwana, The. Tijara, District Alwar. The assessee was not having taxable income , as such, was not filing returnof income. The Department has claimed that notice u/s 148 was issued on 29/3/2017 and served upon the assessee. However, the Department has not furnished any evidence of service of notice upon the assessee. Before the Learned CIT(A), the issue was raised, but the same has remained unconsidered. The Learned CIT(A) has simply mentioned that the ground regarding non-service of notice was of general nature and did not require any specific adjudication. Thus, the issue has remained undecided up to the stage of Learned CIT(A). The assessment so framed on the basis of notice allegedly issued on 29/3/2017 u/s 148 is invalid in the absence of any service on the assessee. It is submitted that the assessment has been framed u/s 144 and, as such, the assessee had no opportunity to raise the issue of service before the Learned Assessing Officer. It is further submitted that the assessee also did not receive notice issuedon 6/12/2017 for completion of assessment u/s 144. In these circumstances, it is the submission of the assessee that on account of non-service of notice u/s 148 and show-cause notice dated 6/12/2017, the assessment framed u/s 144 is unlawful and invalid and the same deserves to be quashed.

RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,53,650/- out of Rs. 15,95,000/- made by the Assessing Officer giving credit of agricultural income without considering the submission of the assessee. In the case of the assessee, while filing the return of income, agricultural income was disclosed of Rs. 13,41,350/-. The Learned Assessing Officer, after finding out the land holding of the assessee from land revenue department of Rajasthan, that assessee was holding 7.05 hectres of land, allowed agricultural income to the extent of Rs.7,41,350/- and balance Rs. 6,00,000/- was disallowed. It is submitted that the entire action of the Learned Assessing Officer is based on conjectures. He has not conducted any field inquiries, nor has brought any material on record to restrict the agricultural income to Rs. 7,41,350/- as against Rs. 13,41,350/- claimed by the assessee. The action of the Learned Assessing Officer is assailed as under :- d. Details of Khasragirdawri disclose sowing of Sarson, wheat, millet and barley It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer restricted the agricultural income to Rs. 7,41,350/- purely on guess work. The assessee is now furnishing copy of khasragirdawri for the Samvat Year 2069, 2070, 2071, 2072, which discloses that the assessee was having crops of mustard, wheat, millet. Mustard is a cash crop and yields good return from the agricultural land. Copy of khasragirdawri is available on Paper Book Page No cited supra. This is the only source of the assessee. It is further submitted that on 3/6/2015, the assessee was also granted loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- for agricultural purposes by Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Branch Tapukra. Copy of the sanction letter of loan is available on Paper Book Page No cited supra. This establishes that assessee was fully engaged in agricultural activities and was making substantial investments for having good agricultural income. The income disclosed by the assessee was fair and true. The same deserved to be accepted. There was no reason for the Learned Assessing Officer to restrict the same. e. Agricultural income accepted in A.Y. 2011-12 completed u/s 143(3) It is further submitted that in the subsequent assessment year, 2011-12, the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 16,25,000/- and the same was accepted in assessment completed u/s 143(3), vide order dated 17/12/2018. A copy of assessment order is available on Paper Book Page No cited supra. It is further submitted that during the A.Y. 2011-12 also, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 14,50,000/- in bank and the same was also accepted. It is submitted that the source of cash deposited in bank is agricultural income only. It is further submitted that the copy of bank account with PNB also disclosed that assessee deposited Rs. 13,00,000/- in cash on 26/9/2008. The RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI submission of the assessee is that it is a regular feature in the case of the assessee of depositing cash in bank and the source of the same is agricultural income. The cash deposited in bank of Rs. 13,41,500/- during the A.Y. 2010-11, which is under consideration, is not either a new or a unique feature. Both in the preceding assessment year as well as in the succeeding assessment year, the assessee has deposited cash of the same magnitude, i.e. Rs. 14,25,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs. 13,00,000/- in A.Y. 2009-10. Keeping these facts in view, the cash deposited in the bank account amounting to Rs. 13,41,000/- in A.Y. 2010-11 deserves to be accepted, being fully from agricultural income. The agricultural income also deserves to be accepted as disclosed by the assessee. f. Source of deposit of cash in bank is fully explained It is submitted that the Learned Assessing Officer treated cash deposits of Rs. 13,41,350/- as unexplained. However, in appeal, the Learned CIT(A) granted relief of Rs. 7,41,350/- on account of funds available of agricultural income as accepted by the Learned Assessing Officer. Thus, the unexplained deposit in cash after the order of the Learned CIT(A) remains only of Rs. 8,53,650/-. In the above regard, it is submitted that the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs. 13,41,350/-. The assessee has now furnished sufficient documentary evidences of land holdings, of crops grown on the land and also the major fact that agricultural income amounting to Rs. 14,25,000/- was accepted in assessment order completed u/s 143(3), copy of which is available on Paper book page cited supra, all these evidences establish beyond doubt that the assessee enjoyed agricultural income as disclosed at Rs. 13,41,350/-. Thus, against the unexplained deposit, which remains at Rs. 8,53,650/- credit is required of the agricultural income not accepted by the Learned Assessing Officer as well as by the Learned CIT(A) of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The assessee was also having income from animal husbandry disclosed at Rs. 1,31,240/-, which has also been accepted by the Learned Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the assessee that the assessee was having sufficient cash exceeding Rs. 5 lac on account of savings and income from animal husbandry. It is out of these savings kept at home for purposes of emergency that assessee deposited thebalance amount of Rs. 2,53,650/-. Thus, the entire cash deposited in the bank is explained as under :- (a) Addition after order of CIT(A) Rs.8,53,650/- (b) Sources (i) Agricultural income available not Accepted by the Rs.6,00,000 Learned A.O/CIT(A) (ii) Out of animal husbandry income Rs.2,53,650 Rs.8,53,650/- Thus, the cash deposited in bank are fully explained. The Hon'ble ITAT is humbly requested to accept the agricultural income disclosed by the assessee atRs.

The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. The additional grounds taken above may kindly be considered by the Hon'ble ITAT. The Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to consider the above grounds of appeal, including the additional grounds as mentioned above, and decide the appeal in favour of the assessee.’’ To support the submissions of the assessee, the ld.AR of the assessee has filed the following paper book.

Sr. Particular Page No. no.

RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI 5.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that as per information available with the Department for non-PAN AIR Data, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.26.25 lacs in his saving bank account during the year under consideration . On verification of the record, the Department found that the assessee had not filed his return of income for A.Y. 2010-11. Therefore, the taxability of above transactions could not be verified/ ascertained. It is noted that the case of assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29-03-2017. Hence, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 22-09-2017 to furnish the return in response to notice issued on 29-03-2017 u/s 148 of the Act. No compliance to the notices issued had been made by the assessee nor anybody attended the proceedings initiated u/s 148/147 of the Act. Further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 22-09-2017. Hence, the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,56,470/- and agriculture income of Rs.13,41,500/- manually in office of the AO without quoting PAN. Since the assessee has not mentioned PAN in his ITR, therefore the ITR filed by the assessee was treated as Invalid by the Department. Further, the assessee had not filed any reply to the notices issued in his case. It is further noticed that the AO on perusal of the return and computation filed by the assessee, RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI found that the assessee had shown income of Rs.13,41,350/- as ‘’Agriculture Income’’. The assessee was asked to produce documentary evidence to substantiate agricultural income vide notice dated 6-12-2017 but the assessee did not file any reply and thus in the absence of any documentary evidence it could not be established that the assessee had earned large amount of Rs.13,41,350/- through agricultural activities. However, the assessee had land holdings but it was not acceptable to the Department that the assessee can earn a large amount of Rs.13,41,350/- through agricultural activities without support of any documentary evidence. As per jamabandi, details available on record and record obtained from the website of ‘’Land Revenue Department of Rajasthan Govt. , it was found that the assessee had approximately 7.5 Hectares land in his possession. Thus the AO considering the nature of land held by the assessee and other circumstances i.e. weather condition, water availability, soil nature etc. held that it is not quite possible to earn a huge amount of Rs.13,41,350/- by the assessee out of 7.5 (approx.) Hectares of land only and thus the AO restricted the agricultural income of the assessee at Rs.7,41,350/- and balance Rs.6,00,000/- lacs was treated as ‘’Income from other Sources’’ of assessee.From the assessment order, it is noticed that the AO completed RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI the assessment u/s 144 on 22/12/2017, determining total income at Rs. 23,76,700/- and thus making the following additions :- c. Unexplained cash deposit in bank Rs.15,95,000/- d. Agricultural income treated as Income from other sources Rs. 6,00,000/- In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.8,53,650/- (Rs.15,95,000 minus Rs.7,41,350) with following narration. ‘’10.6 In view of the above discussion, I have arrived at the opinion that the AO was justified in restricting agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 7,41,350/-, but not justified in treating balance agricultural income of Rs. 6,00,000/- as income from other sources. Also, the accepted agricultural income should be treated as part source of cash deposit. Hence, unexplained cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 8,53,650/- [Rs. 15,95,000-Rs. 7,41,350] is sustained. Accordingly ground No. 3 is partly allowed.’’ The grievance of the assessee is that while filing the return of income, he disclosed the agricultural income of Rs.13,41,350/- while the AO after getting information from the Land Revenue Department noted that the assessee holds 7.5 hectare of land thus the AO restricted allowed agricultural income to the extent of Rs.7,41,350/- as against income of Rs.13,41,350/-claimed by the assessee. He submitted that this restriction of income to the extent of Rs.7,41,350/- is purely on guess work basis. The assessee furnished the copy of Khasra Girdawari (PB 12-15) which discloses that the assessee was having crops of mustard, wheat, millet. Mustard is a cash crop and yields good return from the agricultural land. It RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI is also noted that the assessee was granted loan of Rs.15.00 lacs for agricultural purposes by Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Branch Tapukra and copy of the sanction letter of loan is available at PB Page 16- 17 which establishes that the assessee is fully engaged in agricultural activities and was making substantial investment for having good agricultural income. It is also noted from the records that in the subsequent assessment year 2011-12, the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs.16,25,000/- and the same was accepted in assessment completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 17-12-2018 (PB Page 18-19). In the assessment year 2011-12, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.14.50 lacs in bank and the same was accepted being cash source from agricultural income. It is further noted from the Bank Account with PNB that the assessee deposited Rs.13.00 lacs in cash on 26-09-2008 which is a regular feature in the case of the assessee depositing cash in bank and the source is agricultural income. The case deposited in bank of Rs.13,41,500/- during the A.Y. 2010-11 is not a peculiar fact. It is also noted that the assessee deposited cash of the same magnitude i.e. Rs.14,25,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs.13.00 lacs in A.Y. 2009-10. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the cash deposit of Rs.13,41,500/- deposited in Bank by the assessee in the A.Y. 2010-11 needs to be RAM PRASAD THROUGH HIS L/H PANKAJ GOYAL VS ITO, WARD-BHIWADI accepted being agricultural income. Thus the addition of Rs.8,53,650/- sustained by the ld CIT(A) is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the above observation. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28 /10/2025.