SHRI VISHNU KUMAR,BAREILLY vs. I.T.O. -2(3), BAREILLY

The assessee, at the outset, invited our attention to a petition dated 19/10/2021, received by the registry of this office on 24/11/2021, whereby the Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had died and his son be taken on record as legal heir and in this respect invited our attention to the duly sworn in affidavit, filed by the legal heir as well as the copy of revised Form-36, along with the grounds of appeal. Learned D. R. had no objection for taking on record the legal heir. Therefore, legal heir was taken on record and Learned counsel for the assessee was asked to proceed with his arguments.

Learned D. R., on the other hand, regarding receipt of agriculture income, invited our attention to the order of learned CIT(A) and submitted that learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed substantial relief to the assessee and the only basis for allowing substantial relief to the assessee is that the money was received through banking channels. He invited my attention to the fact that the Assessing Officer had clearly made a finding of fact that the agriculture income from land of 52 Bighs cannot exceed Rs.1,56,000/- on the basis of yield in the local area. He further submitted that in the earlier years the assessee did not disclose agriculture income and suddenly during the year he disclosed huge agriculture income which in fact is income from hidden sources and therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly rejected the claim and learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed substantial relief to the assessee and therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed. Similarly, regarding other sustenance of addition to the extent of Rs.50,000/-, Learned D. R. submitted that the assessee had deposited huge amount of cash in his bank accounts against which the Assessing Officer confirmed addition of Rs.2,04,000/- only and learned CIT(A) has restricted the addition only to Rs.50,000/-. Learned D. R. submitted that the order of learned CIT(A) is not correct and the only reason for not filing the appeal against the order of learned CIT(A) is that on the quantum of relief, the tax effect is below Rs.50 lac. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it was argued that the appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed.

I have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. I find that the Assessing Officer, in his order, has recorded that the assessee had declared agriculture income to the extent of Rs.17,25,068/- on a land of 52 Bigha and against which the 9R Form to the extent of Rs.3,41,880/- only were filed. He further held that such huge agriculture income cannot be expected out of land of 52 Bigha as the average yield per Bigha in the local area was only Rs.3,000/- per Bigha. The Assessing Officer therefore, made a net addition of Rs.10,78,800/-. The learned CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.1,88,801/-. While allowing relief to the assessee the learned CIT(A) did not consider the findings of the Assessing Officer and allowed substantial relief of Rs.10 lac just by holding that the assessee had received the payments through banking channels. None of the findings of the Assessing Officer have been negated by learned CIT(A) nor before us the counsel has filed any evidence in the form of paper book regarding the genuineness of receipt of agriculture income and other documentary evidence to justify agricultural income. Therefore, I do not find any justification in the appeal of the assessee on this issue. Accordingly, the addition sustained by learned CIT(A) is upheld and on this ground, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Now coming to the addition of Rs.50,000/-, I find that the Assessing Officer had made the addition of Rs.2,04,000/- out of total cash deposit in the bank account to the extent of Rs.38,06,500/-. The Assessing Officer had noted in his order that such deposits were made in the bank account during the demonetization period. Still out of the total deposits, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,04,000/- only and the learned CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.50,000/- only. I find that before learned CIT(A), it was submitted that there was cash in hand available as on 08/11/2016 amounting to Rs.38,44,795/- out of which the assessee had made total deposits to the tune of Rs.38,06,500/- which is less than the opening cash in hand and therefore, restricting the addition to Rs.50,000/- is not justified and hence it is deleted. In view of the above, the second grievance is decided in favour of the assessee.

Though the assessee has taken a number of grounds but at the time of hearing only ground No. 1, containing the addition on merits, was argued and none of other grounds were argued. Therefore, ground No. 2 to 7 are dismissed and ground No. 1 is partly allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.