RAJMAL MEWADA,SEHORE vs. CIT(A), DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 21.10.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 12.02.2016 passed by learned ITO, Sehore [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2008-09, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Page 1 of 11
Rajmal Mewada ITA No. 819/Ind/2024 - AY 2008-09
The background facts leading to this appeal are such that the AO, on
the basis of Non-PAN AIR information in departmental database, came to
know that the assessee-individual had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.
12,84,000/- in Bank of India during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to
AY 2008-09. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 148 on 19.03.2015
initiating proceeding u/s 147 followed by notices u/s 142(1). However,
finding no response from assessee, the AO framed assessment u/s 144 on
the basis of information available in his possession and assessed the entire
amount of impugned deposits as unexplained income of assessee.
2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal. Before CIT(A),
the assessee filed a detailed submission which is re-produced in Para 5 of
CIT(A)’s order. In the submission so made, the assessee explained two-fold
sources of deposits in bank a/c, namely (i) the agricultural income earned
from lands held by assessee, his wife and sons [“assessee-family”] was
deposited, and (ii) the cash withdrawals made from very same bank a/c were
also deposited. The assessee also filed documentary evidences of land
holding, crop sales and bank statement as additional evidences in terms of
Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962. The CIT(A) accepted assessee’s request
under Rule 46A and called remand-report from AO. The AO submitted
remand-report which is re-produced in Para 5.2 of CIT(A)’s order. The AO
made certain adverse observations in remand-report and therefore the CIT(A)
shared remand-report with assessee and provided an opportunity to
assessee. The assessee filed rejoinder which is also re-produced in Para 5.3
Page 2 of 11
Rajmal Mewada ITA No. 819/Ind/2024 - AY 2008-09
of CIT(A)’s order. Ultimately, however, the CIT(A) rejected the explanation
given by assessee qua sources of impugned deposits and upheld addition.
2.2 Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.
At the outset, Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee is a
small agriculturist and the agriculture is the only source of income of
assessee’s family. He brought Shri Kedar Singh, son of assessee, in the open
court to demonstrate the status of assessee’s family. Ld. AR then made a
very humble prayer with folded hands that the case of assessee is simple
and straightforward and involves a small dispute which should be finally
resolved by this bench taking into account the evidences on record.
Ld. AR next submitted that the dispute in present case is with regard
to the source of cash deposits of Rs. 12,84,000/- made by assessee in Bank
A/c. He submitted that the assessee had two sources to make impugned
deposits and those sources are very much substantiated by the evidences
filed to CIT(A) and also placed in Paper-Book before this bench. Ld. AR made
following submissions:
(i) That the first source of deposit was agricultural income earned by
assessee-family. Ld. AR filed a statement of agriculture receipts
derived by assessee at Page 22 of Paper-Book, the same is scanned
and re-produced below:
Page 3 of 11
Rajmal Mewada ITA No. 819/Ind/2024 - AY 2008-09
Ld. AR drew us to Pages 23 to 45 of Paper-Book where the evidences
in the forms of Invoices and Payment Vouchers issued by purchasers
as mentioned in the above statement are filed and corroborated the
details mentioned in above statement with reference to the
corresponding Invoices and Payment Vouchers one by one. He
submitted that all purchasers are established businessmen including
some of the reputed industries like Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, ITC
Ltd., etc. He demonstrated that the Invoices and Payment Vouchers
Page 4 of 11
Rajmal Mewada ITA No. 819/Ind/2024 - AY 2008-09
contain complete details such as name of crop sold, date, quantity,
rate, amount and the payment made to assessee. He demonstrated
that all documents are authentic and genuine routed through Krishi
Upaj Mandi Samiti. He submitted that the documents submitted by
assessee do not disclose any iota of deficiency or adversity.
Having shown thus, Ld. AR went ahead to submit that following three
lands were owned by assessee-family during the relevant previous
year 2007-08 from which aforesaid agricultural receipts were derived.
Ld. AR carried us to the evidences of these three lands owned by
assessee-family in the Form of “Rin Pustika” issued by Govt. placed in
in Paper-Book:
Holder Rin Khasra No. Area Paper-
Pustika (Hectare) Book
No. Pages
Rajmal Mewada 201391 459, 462 6.195 6 – 9
Smt. Sarju Bai 201392 443, 458, 460/1, 2.335 10 - 16
(wife) 482/1/2,
461/1/2, 482/2
Hanuwant Singh 201390 461/1/1, 461/2 1.563 17 – 20
and Kedar Singh
(Sons)
Total 10.093
Page 5 of 11
Rajmal Mewada ITA No. 819/Ind/2024 - AY 2008-09
Ld. AR carried us to the Pages of Paper-Book mentioned in last
column of above Table to demonstrate that the abovementioned three
lands were owned by assessee-family, emphasizing particularly that
the “Rin Pustikas” clearly exhibit holding of lands in the “year 2007-
08” which is relevant to AY 2008-09 under consideration. Ld. AR thus
contended that the three lands were owned by assessee-family during
the financial year 2007-08 with which we are concerned. Therefore, Ld.
AR submitted, the observation of AO in remand-report and
consequently the conclusion taken by CIT(A) resting upon AO’s
remand-report that no land was owned by assessee-family during the
year 2007-08 is wrong. Ld. AR, however, agreed that the assessee
inadvertently included two more lands (one having area of 3.861
hectare owned by Shri Kedar Singh + other having area of 3.860
hectare owned by Shri Hanuman Singh) in the submission made to
CIT(A) but when the AO reported in remand-report that those two
lands were purchased during the year 2011-12 and were not owned in
the year 2007-08, the assessee immediately rectified such inadvertent
mistake in the rejoinder filed to CIT(A). In conclusion, Ld. AR
submitted that the assessee-family was holding three lands
aggregating to 10.093 hectares during the financial year 2007-08 as
per details given in the above Table.
(ii) That the second source of deposit was cash withdrawals made by
assessee from very same bank a/c. Ld. AR carried us to Pages 46-47
Page 6 of 11
Rajmal Mewada ITA No. 819/Ind/2024 - AY 2008-09
of Paper-Book where a copy of bank pass-book is filed. Referring to
same, Ld. AR demonstrated that following cash withdrawals were
made by assessee through self cheques on various dates during the
relevant year:
Date Amount
28.04.2007 2,000
30.04.2007 81,000
11.06.2007 16,000
30.08.2007 4,00,000
23.11.2007 1,00,000
26.11.2007 10,000
03.12.2007 72,000
01.03.2008 500
Total 6,81,500
Then, the Ld. AR went ahead to submit that he has also compiled the
details of cash availability with assessee in the form of a Statement which is
filed at Page 21 of Paper-Book. Referring to the entries of inflows and outflow
mentioned therein, Ld. AR submitted that the Statement contains all details
of receipts from sale of crop, cash withdrawals from bank and cash
deposited in bank. He submitted that there is a regular flow of receipts from
sale of agricultural crop and the deposits in bank a/c have also been made
in a corresponding regular pattern, there is nothing unusual. He submitted
Page 7 of 11
Rajmal Mewada ITA No. 819/Ind/2024 - AY 2008-09
that there is only one entry of high cash deposit of Rs. 7,10,000/- made on
22.11.2007 (which is adversely pointed out by AO in remand-report) but
there were continuous sales aggregating to Rs. 7,14,569/- during the period
12.11.2007 to 22.11.2007 prior to such deposit in bank a/c. The details of
such sales, which are fully supported by Invoices and Payment Vouchers,
have already been discussed in preceding para. Therefore, Ld. AR contended,
the immediate source of high deposit of Rs. 7,10,000/- is also very much
explained.
With above submissions, Ld. AR prayed that the sources of deposits in
bank a/c are satisfactorily explained by assessee with sufficient evidences.
Hence, the sources claimed by assessee must be accepted and the addition
made by AO be deleted.
Ld. DR for revenue was fair enough in not controverting the
submissions and prayers made by Ld. AR although he dutifully relied upon
the orders of lower-authorities.
We have considered submissions of both sides and carefully perused
the orders of lower authorities as well as the documents held in Paper-Book
to which our attention has been drawn. Admittedly, the assessee has made
total cash deposits of Rs. 12,84,000/- on different dates in bank a/c during
the relevant year and the assessee could not make any representation before
AO at assessment stage, therefore the AO has framed assessment u/s 144
and treated the entire deposits as unexplained income of assessee. However,
Page 8 of 11
Rajmal Mewada ITA No. 819/Ind/2024 - AY 2008-09
during first-appeal, the assessee has convinced the CIT(A) for non-
appearance before AO and also filed additional evidences qua the sources of
deposits in terms of Rule 46A. The CIT(A) accepted assessee’s submission
and forwarded evidences to AO for remand-report. Then, the AO filed
remand-report to CIT(A). The CIT(A) provided remand-report to assessee and
then assessee filed rejoinder to CIT(A). In his remand-report, the AO
reported that the landholding of assessee-family during the year 2007-08
was not proved. But in his rejoinder to remand-report, the assessee
admitted his inadvertent mistake and made a rectified submission that out
of total five lands, three lands were owned by assessee-family during the
year 2007-08 and only two lands were not owned in that year. But the CIT(A)
concluded “I find from the remand report that appellant or his family
members were not owning any land during FY 2007-08” and upheld addition.
The Ld. AR for assessee carried us to the “Rin Pustikas” of three lands as
placed in Paper-Book (the details of Pages of Paper-Book have already been
mentioned in the last column of the Table of lands in earlier para) and
successfully demonstrated that the assessee-family owned those three lands
aggregating to 10.093 hectare during the financial year 2007-08 in open
court. The Ld. AR for assessee has also carried us to the Invoices and
Payment Vouchers of sales receipts of crops sold by assessee to various
purchasers from which it is clearly discernible that the crop was sold to
reputed businessmen including some leading industries. The Invoices and
Payment Vouchers filed by assessee in Paper-Book were examined during
Page 9 of 11
Rajmal Mewada ITA No. 819/Ind/2024 - AY 2008-09
hearing in open court and no flaw or deficiency was observed by us or even
pointed out by Ld. DR for revenue. Thus, the holding of land and receipts
from sale of crop by assessee-family during the year 2007-08 are proved. So
far as second source of deposit i.e. withdrawals from bank a/c is concerned,
the pass-book of bank filed by assessee clearly proves assessee’s claim that
a total cash withdrawal of Rs. 6,81,500/- was made during year from bank
a/c. Thus, the source of cash withdrawals is also proved. We also find that
there is a single cash deposit of Rs. 7,10,000/- on 22.11.2207, all others are
regular cash deposits in bank a/c. The single cash deposit is also explained
from immediate receipts of crop sale made during the period 12.11.2007 to
22.11.2007. The assessee has also filed a cash availability statement
incorporating the inflows from agriculture and cash withdrawals as well as
outflows of cash deposits and this statement does not show any negative
cash position, in fact it leaves sufficient cash balance for agriculture,
household and other expenses as well. Thus, taking into account the
contemporary evidences of agriculture income and cash withdrawals from
bank filed by assessee which remain uncontroverted by revenue, we find
that the assessee had explainable sources for making cash deposits in bank
a/c. In that view of matter, the addition made by AO and upheld by CIT(A) is
not sustainable. We therefore delete the addition fully. The assessee
succeeds in this appeal.
Page 10 of 11
Rajmal Mewada ITA No. 819/Ind/2024 - AY 2008-09
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 18/06/2025
Sd/- Sd/-
(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Indore
िदनांक/Dated : 18/06/2025
Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYsr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 11 of 11
