Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturist, disclosed agricultural income in his return. The AO treated an amount received from Eastern Valley Agro Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained cash credit and undisclosed income. The assessee claimed this amount was received back from an investment in shares of Dhenkanal Fruits and Vegetables Marketing Limited.
Held
The Tribunal considered that the assessee had no other source of income apart from agriculture and that a subsequent assessment year's agricultural income was accepted. The fact that the money was returned through Eastern Valley Agro Pvt. Ltd. was not disproved by the revenue.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO on account of agricultural income and deposits in the bank account as unexplained cash credit is sustainable.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Ghanshyam Bhabagrahi Padhi, Vs ITO, Ward- Dhenkanal, Dhenkanal Bhagirathipur, Sarakpatna,Dhenkanal, 759015 PAN No. : AARPP 6095 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi dated 21/06/2024 passed in Appeal No. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016- 2017.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee is an individual, who is an agriculturist. He has no other source of income. In the return of income, the assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs.25.41 lakhs. It was the submission that the AO treated the transaction in his bank account of the agricultural income as unexplained cash credit as also made an addition of the amount received by the assessee from Eastern Valley Agro Pvt. Ltd., a company in which the assessee himself is one of the directors, who is doing agricultural operations, as undisclosed income of the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee has no other source of income other than agriculture. The assessee had disclosed agricultural income of Rs.12.52 lakhs in the assessment year 2013-2014, Rs.14.95 lakhs in the assessment year 2014-2015, Rs.18.52 lakhs in the assessment year 2015-2016, Rs.25.41 lakhs in the assessment year 2016-2017, Rs.28.52 lakhs in the assessment year 2017-2018, Rs.30.59 lakhs in the assessment year 2018-2019 and Rs.38.32 lakhs in the assessment year 2019-2020. It was the further submission that the return for the assessment year 2018-2019 had been taken for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was completed under the faceless scheme and the agricultural income disclosed by the assessee has been accepted. The said assessment order reads as follows :-
It was the submission that as the assessee has no other income other than the agricultural income, there is no cash transaction in the accounts of the assessee, therefore, the addition made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.
4. In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee had originally claimed that the amount of Rs.36 lakhs received by the assesse was from Dhenkanal Fruits and Vegetables Marketing Limited but the facts showed that the amount was received from Eastern Valley Agro Private Limited. It was the submission that the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts clearly shows that the assessee has categorically mentioned that the assessee had made the payment of Rs.36.50 lakhs for investment in the shares of Dhenkanal Fruits and Vegetable Marketing Private Limited, a Government of Odisha initiative, the same has been returned to the assessee through Eastern Valley Agro Private Limited, a company in which the assessee is one of the directors. This fact has not been disproved by the revenue but this fact has been used to make allegation that the money is unexplained. Further, it is admitted by the revenue that the assessee has no other source of income other than the agriculture. Once it is clear that the assessee has no other source of income other than the income from agriculture and for the subsequent assessment year scrutiny assessment has also been done, wherein the agriculture income has been accepted by the revenue, we are of the view that the addition as made by the AO and as confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) of agricultural income and the deposits in the bank account of the assessee is unsustainable and consequently we delete the same.