Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR.
अपीलाथ� क� ओर से /By Appellant : Ms. Rupa Gami, A.R. ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent : Shri Vinod Kumar, D.R. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 13.06.2016 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: This appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai, dated 09.11.2012 for A.Y. 2009-10 on following grounds:
“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) committed a gross error of law and fact in confirming the Order of assessing officer making an addition of Rs.
A.Y. 09-10 [Sanjiv Bipin Barot vs.DCIT] Page 2 10,73,248/- to the total income of the Appellant as unexplained income.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to substantiate his claim that the impugned amount was deposited out of the opening balance and the agricultural income earned during the year by the appellant.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant had submitted in support of his contentions, cash book and the details of agricultural income such as land holding of the appellant and other family members, details of crop sown and the yield thereof to the assessing officer which was mentioned in his Order.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) committed gross error of law and fact in coming to his conclusion without appreciating the materials and evidences produced by the appellant before the assessing officer and relied on an surmises and conjectures in upholding the order of the assessing officer.”
2. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.10,73,248/- on the ground that assessee has not been able to explain the source of deposits in bank account. According to him, assessee has shown cash deposit in bank right from 17.01.2009 to 18.03.2009 totaling to Rs.10,73,248/-. According to assessee, such deposits are from agricultural income whereas according to Assessing Officer, assessee has failed to substantiate his claim. From the details of agricultural income vis-à-vis cash deposits, it was found by Assessing Officer that assessee has shown agricultural income in the first and last quarter of the year whereas cash deposits in the bank is from January 2009 A.Y. 09-10 [Sanjiv Bipin Barot vs.DCIT] Page 3 to March 2009. The explanation of assessee that such cash was deposited out of opening cash balance, agricultural income and surplus from cash withdrawn during the year from the bank was not found satisfactory one. According to Assessing Officer, assessee has failed to reconcile the income from agriculture vis-à-vis cash deposits and accordingly, addition in question was made and which were confirmed by CIT(A).
2.1 Before us, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee has about 40 acres of irrigated land having plants thereon. Once, agricultural land is irrigated one, amounting to the tune of Rs.10 lacs is possible as agriculture income. It is a Horticultural income as emerging from the details of the land filed in paper book. Having accepted the agricultural income from the holdings of the assessee to the tune of Rs.10 lacs deposit of the same is justified.
2.2 Now coming to the second objection of the Assessing Officer that why amount was deposited on different dates. It is a probative of the assessee to have received to agricultural income from the purchaser of the agricultural produces. Same may be deposited as and when received. In the case of agricultural income main thing is to be looked into is whether the agriculture holding of the assessee is potential enough to give yield of such amount of agriculture income or not. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the view that assessee has potential of agricultural income to the tune of about Rs.10 lacs from his undisputed agriculture holding A.Y. 09-10 [Sanjiv Bipin Barot vs.DCIT] Page 4 and same cannot be added in the name of assessee as unexplained income. Assessing Officer is directed accordingly.
3. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed.
Pronounced in the open Court on this the 24th day of June, 2016.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai: Dated 24/06/2016 True Copy S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई ।