DASHRATH KUNWAR,JALORE vs. ITO, WARD-2, JALORE
Facts
The assessee appealed against an order passed by the NFAC, which upheld an assessment order under section 147 read with 143(3). The original assessment related to a cash deposit of Rs. 30 lakhs and interest earned from a bank account. The assessee claimed the source of the deposit was agricultural income from ancestral property co-owned with family members.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted relevant documents, including an affidavit and agricultural land records, to support the claim of agricultural income. The Tribunal found that the quantification of income was an issue due to co-ownership.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee's claim of agricultural income as the source for cash deposits is substantiated? Whether the quantification of income is affected by co-ownership of ancestral property?
Sections Cited
250, 147, 143(3), 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
PerAnikesh Banerjee:
The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2013-14, date of order 04/12/2023. The impugned order wasoriginated
2 ITA No.32/JODH/2024 Dashrath Kanwar from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalore [in short, the “Ld. AO”], passed under section 147/143(3)of the Act, date of order 30/11/2017. 2. 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
3 ITA No.32/JODH/2024 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 ITA No.235/Jodh/2023 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. 5. 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 ITA No. 32/JODH/2024, is allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th day of May, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jodhpur,िदनांक/Dated: 29/05/2025 Pavanan
4 ITA No.32/JODH/2024 Dashrath Kanwar Copy of the Order forwarded to: अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 1. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 2. आयकरआयु� CIT 3. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., जोधपुर/DR, ITAT, 4. JODHPUR गाड�फाइल/Guard file. 5.
BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, JODHPUR
