DASHRATH KUNWAR,JALORE vs. ITO, WARD-2, JALORE

We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on record. The assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act in relation to the cash deposited in bank account amount to Rs.30 lakhs and also the interest earned from the bank of Rs.30,309/-. The assessee filed the income-tax return in compliance of notice U/s 148 of the Act on 08/11/2017 declaring total income amount to Rs. 20,964/-. So, in the impugned assessment the Ld. AO observed that the assessee deposited of cash of Rs.30 lakh in Jalore Central Co-operative Bank, Raniwada on 31/10/2012. The Ld.AO asked for source for depositing cash in bank account of the assessee and the assessee replied that he had agricultural income and the amount accumulated was deposited in the bank account. In this respect the assessee submitted an affidavit and the documents related to “Khasra Girdawari Report” as evidence for holding the land and cultivation of the crops. The assessee is holding the property with other family members, and it is an ancestral property where the said income was generated. Finally, in impugned assessment year, the entire amount was deposited. The documents related to property is duly annexed in APB pages 7 to 17, is reproduced as below:- 1) Agri. Crops statement 2) Jamabandi 3) Jamabandhi (Pratilipi) 4) Jamabandhi (Khatauvni) Gram Dashrath Kanwar 3. In argument, the Ld.AR placed that the documents of the assessee has never been challenged and veracity was never rejected. The Ld.AO fully relied on the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Jodhpur in case of Shabnam vs. ITO in date of order 03/06/2024.

The Ld.DR argued and stated that the assessee is a co-owner of the said property, so the generation of income from the agricultural land is not sufficient for depositing cash in the bank account, so the addition should be upheld.

In our considered opinion, the assessee has duly submitted all relevant documents, including an affidavit evidencing ownership and possession of agricultural land. Furthermore, the quantification of the income in question as the assessee is holding the property with other co-owners. The argument of the Ld. DR is duly considered related the quantification of income. The order of the coordinate bench is factually distinguished and the matter is remanded before the Ld. AO for further adjudication. Needless to say,the assessee should get a reasonable opportunity of hearing in the set aside assessment proceedings. The appeal of the assessee, bearing , is allowed for statistical purpose.