UMESH AMBIKAPRASAD MISHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4620/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 March 2024AY 2012-1321 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. **Issue 1 (Agricultural Income):** The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided 7/12 extracts and a land surveyor's report to substantiate the agricultural income. The Tribunal referred to the decision in the assessee's brother's case, which was restored to the AO for de-novo consideration. For AY 2011-12, Ground No. 1 was similar to Ground No. 2 of AY 2012-13, and the decision therein would apply mutatis-mutandis. The Tribunal directed that the addition made under Section 68 concerning agricultural income be deleted, as the assessee had successfully discharged the onus by furnishing documentary evidence. The ratio is that sufficient documentary evidence substantiating agricultural income and its source can lead to the deletion of additions made under Section 68. 2. **Issue 2 (Amount from Mr. Shailesh Raval):** The Tribunal observed that the amount of ₹2,50,00,000/- needed to be dealt with in two parts: ₹1.35 crores claimed as payment and ₹1.15 crores as compensation or disputed issues. For the first part (₹1.35 crores), the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the assessee actually made the payments through bank or cash. If proved, the conditions of Section 68 would be fulfilled, and the payment would be treated as genuine. If not proved, the addition would be sustained to the extent of ₹1.35 crores. For the second part (₹1.15 crores), the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition at this stage, as the issue was pending before the DRT. The income would be added in the year of the DRT award if decided in favour of the assessee, or no income would arise if decided against the assessee. Thus, Ground No. 2 was partly allowed. 3. **Issue 3 (Addition under Section 23(4)(b)):** This issue was not argued before the Tribunal and was dismissed as not pressed. Operative Directions: The addition of ₹22,70,610/- related to agricultural income was directed to be deleted. The addition of ₹2,50,00,000/- was to be verified for ₹1.35 crores and deleted for ₹1.15 crores. The addition under Section 23(4)(b) was dismissed. Penalty proceedings and interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were dismissed as premature or consequential.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mr. Umesh A. Mishra, filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 and 2012-13. For AY 2012-13, the assessee declared a total income of ₹12,45,798/-, including agricultural income from a jointly held land, remuneration, interest, LIC commission, and share of profit from a partnership firm. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated cash deposited in the assessee's bank account, purportedly from agricultural produce sale, as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), due to a lack of documentary evidence for the sale of produce. The AO also treated an amount of ₹2,50,00,000/- received from Mr. Shailesh Raval as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) upheld these additions, doubting the genuineness of agricultural income due to the submission of old documents. The appeals were clubbed as the issues were identical.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of ₹22,70,610/- under Section 68 of the Act, treating agricultural income as unexplained cash credit, is justified, given the assessee's claim that it is exempt under Section 10(1) of the Act? 2. Whether the addition of ₹2,50,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act, treating the amount received from Mr. Shailesh Raval as unexplained cash credit, is justified? 3. Whether the addition of ₹1,85,691/- under Section 23(4)(b) of the Act is justified? Assessee's Contentions: - Regarding Issue 1: The agricultural land is jointly owned and managed, generating income from trees. The assessee discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing 7/12 extracts and a land surveyor's report. The addition is unjustified and should be deleted. The assessee also relied on the decision in his brother's case, Madan Mohan Mishra v. ITO [ITA No. 796/Mum/2023], where a similar issue was restored to the AO. - Regarding Issue 2: The assessee provided MOUs, cancellation deeds, and other documents to substantiate the transaction with Mr. Shailesh Raval. The amount received was due to miscommunication and a disputed sum pending before the DRT. - Regarding Issue 3: This ground was not pressed. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue on these issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 10(1),Section 23(4)(b),Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 271(C),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &, Shri S. L. Jain
For Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan
Pronounced: 13.03.2024

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA NO. 1848/MUM/ 2018
ITA NO. 4620/MUM/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)

1.

These appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax

(Appeals)-17, © Mumbai

[hereinafter in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 29.12.2017 for the A.Ys. 2011-12

and 2012-13. ITA NO. 4620/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2012-13) Mr. Umesh A. Mishra

2.

— Since the issues raised in both the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed off by this consolid

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →