SUBHASH RAMRAO ALONE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PUNE

आदेश आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :

This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-4, Pune, 01-12-2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the A.O. of Rs.5,50,000/- u/s.69 of the Act. The provisions of S.69 are not applicable to the facts of this case as the assessee was not obliged to maintain books of account to attract S.69 of the Act. The addition be deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the land sold was an agricultural land and the extra consideration received of Rs.5,50,000/- was in connection with the said land. There is no allegation from the A.O. that the consideration of Rs.5,50,000/- was received over and above settled consideration. In such circumstances no addition can be made and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) as in case of land consideration of Rs.2,70,000/- it has been deleted by him. The addition is not sustainable. It be deleted.

and filed the return of income on 24-06-2011 declaring total income of

Rs.3,28,037/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS

for verifying the cash deposits in bank account. Assessee made cash

deposits in his bank account maintained with State Bank of India

aggregating to Rs.26,49,000/-. In the assessment, the source of this

deposit is the subject matter. Assessee retired from government service

on 31-10-2010. During the year under consideration, assessee along

with 4 co-owners sold the agricultural income for a sum of

Rs.4,50,000/-. Assessee’s share comes to Rs.90,000/-. Assessee

explained that his 3 sisters and mother relinquished their rights and

they did not accept any consideration out of the said sale transaction.

AO accepted the sum of Rs.90,000/-, i.e. share in respect of mother as

she lives with the assessee. However, the AO rejected the explanation of

the assessee that his sisters relinquished their rights and thus

disallowed Rs.2,70,000/- as unexplained investment in cash deposit.

Assessee further stated that he received Rs.5,50,000/- in respect of sale

of “other items” in connection with the said land. In absence of proper

explanation and the details for explaining these other items, AO rejected

the same and made addition of Rs.5,50,000/- u/s.69 of the Act.

CIT(A) contesting the additions, i.e. (1) addition of Rs.2,70,000/- made

on account of unexplained investment; and (2) addition of

Rs.5,50,000/- made on sale of other items attached to the land.

of Rs.2,70,000/-. Contents of Para No.5.3 are relevant. However, the

CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.5,50,000/- as per the discussion given in Para No.6.3 of his order.

assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with the aforesaid

grounds.

co-owned by the assessee along with 4 others was sold for a recorded

sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. However, in the assessment proceedings, AO

noticed cash deposit of Rs.5,50,000/- in the saving bank account of the

assessee with SBI and enquired into the source of the said cash deposit.

Assessee submitted that this amount constitute sale proceeds earned

by the assessee on account of attachments/other items with the said

land transaction which was subject matter of the same in the

assessment as well as in the appellate proceedings. Factually, the

assessee could not demonstrate the details of the said

attachments/other items, which is the source for earning of the cash of

Rs.5,50,000/-. Considering the failure to discharge the onus, the AO

made the said addition and CIT(A) confirmed the same. On these facts,

Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for “one more round” of

proceedings before the AO and promised to supply the relevant details

of said attachments the said land which gave rise to the cash deposit of

Rs.5,50,000/-. In this regard, Ld. Counsel filed the following note and

the same reads as under :

“1. The assessee had owned agricultural lands at Dhanara Tal.Yewatmal and were under cultivation for the crops like Soyabin, Jawar, Tur about 03H 27R along with other family members. The various trees such as chiku, Lemon, Mango and others were planted alongside the said agricultural land. It is common knowledge that the Trees planted and grown on such Agricultural land do not get mentioned in the Revenue Records/ 7/12 extracts. It is also a general faith professed by the agriculturists that such grown up trees are not separately sold. The purchasers pay for them separately.

requested for one more opportunity before the AO. Ld. DR submitted

that the it is for the assessee to discharge the onus on the source of

funds on the details of attachments if any and the assessee failed to

adduce any evidence in support of the said cash deposit of

Rs.5,50,000/-. Therefore, opposing the said new explanation, Ld. DR

prayed for confirming the addition.

assessee failed to give basic details on the alleged “attachments/other

items” sold along with the sale of land transaction in question. The

submissions made by the assessee’s counsel do not indicate the

existence of any direct evidence on the same which gives the relevant

facts about the said transaction for proper adjudication of the issue.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the submissions made by the

assessee are general in nature. Assessee has obligation to demonstrate

the (1) existence of the said trees; (2) the sale of the said trees; (3)

furnishing of details or confirmation if any from the said buyer of the

trees; (4) the flow of funds amounting to Rs.5,50,000/- to the account of

the assessee linking to the said transaction of land; (5) the reasons for

not furnishing the evidence of cultivation of Chiku, Lemon, Mango etc.,

before the AO/CIT(A); and (6) the reasons for furnishing the same before

the Tribunal without sustainable cause. In the light of these

observations, the request of the assessee’s counsel for remanding the

issue to the file of AO for “one more round” of proceedings has to be

rejected.

CIT(A) and proceed to extract the same here as under :

“6.3 DECISION – I have perused the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant as above. The AO had noted in the assessment order that the appellant has not been able to provide the further details of the other items sold along with the agricultural land amounting to Rs.5,50,000/-. The primary onus to prove the source of investment is on the appellant. The appellant has failed to provide the required documentary evidence and has also failed to offer satisfactory explanation about the sources. I therefore hold that the addition of Rs.5,50,000/- made by the assessing officer u/s.69 of the Act is upheld. Ground No.2 as raised by the appellant is dismissed.”

Considering the same, I am of the opinion, on the addition of

Rs.5,50,000/-, the finding given by the CIT(A) is fair and reasonable.

Hence, I uphold the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised

by the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 15th day of June, 2018.

Sd/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक Dated : 15th June, 2018. Satish

आदेश आदेश क� आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)-4, Pune 3. आयकर आयु� / The Pr.CIT-3, Pune 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स आदेशानुसार

स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune