PREM CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), ALWAR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.1251/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2012-13

Sh. Prem Chand Gupta
D-83, Hasan Kha Mewat Nagar,
Ward-2(3),
Alwar.
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AMFPG6481J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Neeraj Gupta, C.A.
jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing

: 20/01/2025

mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement:
: 27/01/2025

vkns'k@ORDER\

PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member,

Assessee-appellant is feeling aggrieved by order dated 24.09.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), whereby appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order dated 20.12.2019, has been partly allowed.

2
2012-13. The order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Thereby the Assessing Officer computed total income of the assessee as under:-

In Rs.
Addition u/s 69 as unexplained investment
47,77,300
Agriculture income assessee as income from other sources
5,48,550
Total income
53,25,850
Rounded off to 53,25,850

This order is passed under section 143(3)/147of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at an income of Rs.53,25,850/- and agriculture income of Rs. 1,75,000/-.Interest w/s
234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act are charged. Tax is calculated. Credit for pre-paid taxes, if any, is given after due verification. Demand Notice and challan are issued. Penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s 271(1) (c) is initiated separately.”

At the same time, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, were also sought to be initiated separately on account of concealment of income.

3
By way of Ground No. 2 raised there, the assessee challenged addition of Rs. 47,77,300/- i.e. u/s 69 of the Act as regards unexplained investment.
Having considered the material made available in the appeal,
Learned CIT(A) was of the view that source of cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 36,51,816/- i.e. out of earlier cash withdrawals from bank, was acceptable.

However, as regards amount to the tune of Rs. 20,77,800/- said to have been received by the assessee from other agriculturists, as loans and advances, Learned CIT(A) held that said claim of the assessee was unacceptable due to the reason that the assessee had failed to prove

4
Ultimately, as regards said addition, Learned CIT(A) deleted part thereof i.e. to the extent of Rs. 36,58,816/- and confirmed framing of addition to the tune of Rs. 11,25,484/-.
IInd Addition

So far as ground No. 3 raised to challenge the second addition of Rs. 5,48,550/-, i.e. income claimed by the assessee from agriculture, but assessed by the Assessing Officer as income from other sources, Learned
6. As is available from the assessment order, and also not disputed by the assessee, initially no return of income was filed by him for the assessment year 2012-13. Department is said to have been received information that the assessee had entered into transactions with banking company for Rs.
47,77,300/-, but he had not filed return of income.
That is how, approval was received from Ld. PCIT, Alwar vide letter dated 28.03.2019 and it led to issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee.
It was followed by other notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, on 02.07.2019 to the assessee. Since, the assessee did not put in appearance on the given date, another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued. It was thereupon on 23.07.2019, Learned AR for the assessee appeared and filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration, declaring income of Rs. 2,298/-. In addition thereto, agriculture income of Rs. 7,23,550/-was also declared. All this is not being disputed on behalf of the appellant.
7. Since above said amount of Rs. 47,77,300/- was not explained by the assessee, case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, as noticed above.

6
As per claim of the department, during financial year 2011-12, the assessee had deposited the above said amount of Rs. 47,77,300/- in his bank account maintained with IDBI Bank, Alwar.
In order to explain said deposit, in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed himself to be an agriculturist, even in the year under consideration. He also claimed not to have engaged in business activity during the said year. He further claimed to have not availed of any loan facility from anyone during the said year, but at the same time, pleaded that during the year, out of a sum of Rs. 21,37,100/-, he had received Rs. 16.32 lacs from various agriculturists.
8. In paragraph No. 6 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that as regards the source of cash deposits the assessee had no explanation. In the same paragraph, details of cash/credits in the bank account of the assessee were referred to. Same need not be reproduced for ready reference.
9. Having gone through the entries in the statement of bank account of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had deposited cash from different cities, including Delhi, Faridabad, Kolkatta,
The portion extracted reads as:
"Onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee is on him. When the nature and source of a receipt, whether it be of money or other property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it is open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source."

8
As a result, while resorting to the provisions of Section 69 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 47,77,300/-, to the income of the assessee.
Before us, Learned AR for the appellant has challenged said addition to the tune of Rs.11,25,484/-while submitting that the assessee led supporting evidence during remand proceedings, but same was not 10
11. While dealing with the Ist addition of Rs. 47,77,300/-, after going through observations made by the Assessing Officer, and taking into consideration failure on the part of the assessee to lend supporting evidence as regard source of cash deposit and amounts received from other agriculturist, Learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee had claimed in the appeal proceedings thatas regards cash to the tune of Rs.
47,77,300/-and in this regard, the assessee had relied on 3 items:
Firstly, that there were withdrawals of Rs. 36,51,816/-from the bank;
Secondly that Rs. 20,77,800/-were by way of loans and advances,Thirdly, that there was an opening cash balance of Rs.
6,61,375/-.

Learned CIT(A) discussed each of the 3 items
Item of Rs. 6,61,375/-
12. As regards the figure of Rs. 6,61,375/-, Learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee had failed to submit balance sheet and other supporting evidences and further that as regards the income earned in the assessment year 2011-12, he had failed to furnish cash flow statement of 12
Learned AR has submitted that having regard to the previous cash balance of Rs. 6,61,375/- i.e. for the year 2011-12, no such addition could be made.

Having regard to the material available on record and the facts recorded in the impugned order by Learned CIT(A), it cannot be said that the assessee had failed to explain this much amount, calling for any addition. Therefore, this addition deserves to be set aside. We order accordingly.
2nd item of Rs. 36,51,816/-
13. As noticed above, as regards second item of Rs. 36,51,816/- i.e. cash withdrawals, Learned CIT(A) accepted the claim put forth by the assessee, and rejected the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in rejecting the same.

13
Consequently, Learned CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee regarding source of cash deposits i.e. by way of cash withdrawals, to the extent of Rs. 36,51,816/-.Department has not challenged said relief granted by Learned CIT(A) to the assessee.
Item of Rs. 20,77,800/-
14. As regards third item of Rs. 20,77,800/-, Learned CIT(A) did not accept the claim of the assessee that said amount was received by him from other agriculturists by way of loan and advances. For this, he recorded the reason that the assessee had not established creditworthiness of the lending parties by producing supporting evidence during the Appellate proceedings.
Whether a case of agriculture income or income from other sources:-
15. As is available from the assessment order, the assessee, in his reply to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, claimed that during the year under consideration, he had agriculture income to the tune of Rs. 7,23,550/-.

15
Abovesaid invoices included invoices regarding sale of onions to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/-.
As regards remaining agriculture income, the assessee, even after having claimed that he was having stock of Gwar crop of the value of Rs.
2,60,000/- and stock of Sarson crop of the value of Rs. 4,25,600/- during the relevant year.
1,75,000/-, but as regards the remaining sum of Rs. 5,48,550/- to the income of the assessee, as well.

17
Order pronounced in the open court on 27/01/2025. ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½

¼ujsUnz dqekj½

(RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI)

(NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:-27/01/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Sh. Prem Chand Gupta, Alwar.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2(3), Alwar.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr ¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A)
5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1251/JPR/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत