Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee declared agricultural income of Rs. 3,03,230/- which was claimed as the source for a cash deposit of Rs. 3,15,000/-. The AO added the amount u/s 69A as unexplained cash credit, which was sustained by the CIT(A), as documentary evidence for the agricultural income could not be furnished initially.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted fresh documentary evidence, including a bill from Krishi Upaj Samiti and land holding documents. However, judicial protocol required verification of these fresh evidences by the Assessing Officer.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained cash credit is justified when the assessee has submitted fresh documentary evidence to explain the source as agricultural income, requiring verification.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 147, 69A, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SH. BAGIRATH MAL BIYANI & SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act 1961 dated 15.05.2024 which has emanated from the order of the Income Tax Officer, 1(1), Indore (M.P.), (in short the AO) u/s 143(3)/147 of the IT Act. dated 26.06.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13.
The grounds of appeal
preferred by the assessee as per memorandum of appeal are as under; “1 That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,15,000/- by alleging this amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 69A. That the assessee was having agricultural income of Rs.3,03,230/- during the year. The amount of Rs.3,15,000/- mainly represents out of this agricultural income. The addition of Rs.3,15,000/- so made being illegal and wrong. The same may very kindly be deleted.
2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confining the addition made by the AO without even considering the documents submitted before him. This being denial of natural justice the addition so made require to be deleted.
3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in confining the addition of Rs.3,15,000/- made by AO by invoking wrong section. The addition of Rs.3,15,000/- made being illegal and wrong. The same may very kindly be deleted.
4. That the learned CIT(A) erred in maintaining addition of rs.3,15,000/- made by the AO u/s 69A inspite of the fact that no books of account were maintained by the assessee. The addition of Rs.3,15,000/- so made require to be deleted.”
The brief facts are that the assessee is owner of agricultural lands and he was engaged in agricultural activities during the year under appeal, from where agricultural income of Rs. 3,03,230/- has been earned and declared in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148, (among other incomes).
3.1 The declared agricultural income has formed the source of cash deposit in bank amounting to Rs.3,15,000/- during the year under appeal, and the only issue in this appeal is that the documentary evidences of agricultural land holdings and sale proceeds of agricultural produce so declared in the return, could not be furnished before the AO, except a photo copy of a computer generated sale bill of Rs.2,60,815/-, ( without any name and signature of the buyer of goods ), which was rejected by the AO, as bogus, resulting in an addition of Rs.3,15,000/- u/s 69A, of the Act to the returned income.
The Ld. first appellate authority sustained the addition and dismissed the appeal, in the absence of any further documentary evidences being filed before him.
Now before the tribunal, the Ld. AR of the assessee has filed a short paper book consisting of (i) Copy of KHASRA form P – II, (ii) copy of RIN PUSTIKA, (iii) statement containing details of agricultural land holdings of the assessee (iv) Copy of bill from Krishi Upaj Samiti dated 30/08/2011 as evidence of sale proceeds of agricultural produce amounting to Rs.2,60,815/- (bearing the signature of the director of Indraprasth Foods Ltd), and submitted that since the computer generated sale receipt, produced now is complete in all respect with names and signature of buyer and details of agricultural produce sold , the same may be accepted and since the source of cash deposit stands explained, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT ( A ) may please be deleted.
The Ld. DR relied on the order of the first appellate authority, but pointed out that the documentary evidences being filed for the first time before the tribunal, specially the signed and stamped purchase bill, issued by director Indraprasth Foods Ltd, needs verification before acceptance.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered all materials on record and the contents of the paper book filed before us. The documentary evidence of Krishi Upaj Samiti dated 30/08/2011, duly signed and stamped by director Indraprasth Foods Ltd, along with the ownership of supporting agricultural land documents, explains the case of the assessee, but judicial protocol demands that these fresh evidences needs to be verified by the assessing officer before acceptance. 7.1 As such in the fitness of things we remand the matter back to the jurisdictional AO, for acceptance of the fresh documentary evidences now submitted, (after necessary enquiry and verification), as per procedure, and if the same are found to be correct and authentic on verification, the addition will stand deleted, being explained out of agricultural income.
The assessee is also directed to file all the documentary evidences including agricultural land details, Khasra, Rin Pustika, purchase bill copies issued by Krishi Upaj Samity, before the AO for necessary verification. 8.1 The assessee will be allowed reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 17.03.2025 under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963.