Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, deriving income from milk and agricultural activities, filed appeals against the order of the CIT(A). The core issue revolves around the seizure of cash amounting to Rs. 95,89,000 by the GRP, which was alleged to be unexplained money of the assessee. The assessee claimed the cash belonged to a partnership firm, M/s Meena Construction Works, of which he is a partner.
Held
The Tribunal held that the cash found belonged to the firm and not the assessee alone. The invocation of Section 69A in the hands of the assessee was considered misconceived. The addition of Rs. 95,89,000 and interest income of Rs. 25,481, as well as the addition related to agricultural income, were directed to be deleted.
Key Issues
The primary issues were whether the AO and CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of unexplained cash, interest income, and agricultural income, and whether the assessment proceedings were valid without proper approval and adherence to procedural requirements.
Sections Cited
153A, 153D, 68, 115BBE, 69A, 102, 131(1A), 133(6), 142(1), 143(2), 139A, 161, 272B, 22, 144BA(12), XA, CGST Act, 2017, CrPC Act, 1973, IT Act
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
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.
Further, and consequently invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE to such addition also being not in accordance with law and deserves to be quashed.
Ground no. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee challenges the order of the assessing officer on technical grounds. Since we have considered the grounds of appeal on its merits this technical ground becomes educative in nature. Ground no. 10 being general does not require our finding. for A. Y. 2020-21 stands allowed.
The bench noted that the grounds of appeal raised by the to 725/JPR/2023 and 727/JP/2023 for assessment year 2015-16 to 2019-20 and A. Y.
2021-22 are covered and discussed in detailed while considering the appeal of the assessee in for assessment year 2020-21. Since we have allowed those grounds by a detailed finding herein above, we do not find it imperative to repeat the grounds, facts and the decision taken by us for the appeal of the assessee in to 725/JPR/2023 for assessment year 2015-16 to 2019-20 and that similar grounds of appeal to appeal no. 727/JPR/2023 for A. Y. 2021-22 and therefore, the finding recorded by the bench while dealing with the appeal of the assessee in shall apply to 725/JPR/2023 and In the result, all the seven appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.