CHATRU,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

PDF

ITA 723/JPR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, an individual deriving income from milk and agricultural activities, filed appeals against the orders passed by the CIT(A). These appeals stemmed from assessment orders passed by the ACIT, Central Circle, Kota, under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core dispute revolves around the cash seized during the assessment period and the subsequent addition of this amount, along with interest and disallowance of agricultural income, to the assessee's total income.

Held

The tribunal allowed all seven appeals filed by the assessee. The tribunal observed that the cash seized belonged to the firm M/s Meena Construction Works, and not solely to the assessee. Furthermore, the tribunal noted that the AO had not conducted adequate inquiries and had discarded documentary evidence without proper justification. The tribunal found that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing evidence and explanations, and thus the additions made by the AO were unwarranted.

Key Issues

The primary issues debated were the validity of the assessment order passed under Section 153A, the proper approval for assessment orders under Section 153D, and the treatment of seized cash as unexplained money under Section 69A, with the consequential invocation of Section 115BBE.

Sections Cited

153A, 153D, 68, 115BBE, 69A, 102, 131, 132A, 133(6), 142(1), 143(2), 143(3), 153B, 161, 272B, 292B, 139A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 721 to 727/JPR/2023

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &, Shri Harshit Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@

Hearing: 23/10/2024Pronounced: 26/12/2024

was assessed at Rs 1,50,000/-, As, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 4,42,500/-. Therefore, the excess amount of Rs. 2,92,500/-(442500-150000) was added to the total income of the assessee as per provision of section 68 of the IT Act and tax is charged as per provision of section 115BBE of the IT Act.

When the same was carried before the ld. CIT(A) he confirmed the action of the ld. AO by merely stating that “the appellant has failed to explain the source and nature of credit in the books of accounts. Therefore, the AO has rightly made the addition u/s 68 of the Act.”

We note that ld. AO accepted the agricultural income at the rate of Rs 12,000 per bigha, totalling per annum of Rs 1,50,000 and made addition of differential amount of Rs 2,92,500 (4,42,500- 1,50,000) u/s 68 and invoked the provisions of section 115BBE for taxing such income, which stood confirmed by ld.CIT(A). Thus, we note that the ld. AO has estimated the income without any supporting documents. Whereas the income offered by the assessee once accepted in part and thereafter the same is supported by bills for sale items sold the said agricultural income cannot be considered in part. If we calculate the income of Rs.

4,42,500/- dividing the land 12.5 vigha it comes to Rs. 35,400/- per vigha which is also fair and reasonable and does not require to disbelieved merely the assessee could not produce the bills whereas the bills where submitted but was disbelieved merely on account of the fact that same are not complete. Ld. AO when partly considered the income on set of evidence why not full. In view of the above, entire agriculture income stands explained and the addition of Rs 2,92,500/- made by ld.AO deserves to be deleted.