Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, & SHRI K.M. ROY
At the very outset, our attention is drawn to the impugned order dated 25/07/2017, passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal being Nag./2017, for the assessment year 2009–10 and the same is reproduced below for recapitulating the matter:–
“This assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, arises against the CIT(A)-1, Nagpur's order dated 19.05.2017, passed in Case No.CIT(A)-1/409/2011-12, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["In short Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Nitin Mohanlal Taori
3. Learned counsel first of all pleads that both lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing assessee's claim of having received gift from his grand mother to the tune of Rs.3,51,000/-; through banking channel. We find that assessee's grand mother had attributed total source of Rs.6,13,252/- involving deposits in M/s. Devki Agro of Rs.19,500/-; deposits in Shree Dall Mill of Rs. 1,97,105/-; Tulsi Agro Industries of Rs. 19,000/-; sale of silver articles of Rs.1,62,647/-; with cash in hand of Rs.2.5 lakhs out of which she had also gifted Rs.2.51 lakhs to this taxpayer's brother as well which has gone accepted from the department authorities' side.
4. Learned DR could hardly rebut the foregoing clinching facts which sufficiently discharge the assessee's onus of proving evidence and creditworthiness of the gift in issue of Rs.3.51 lakhs. We, therefore, delete this first and foremost addition in very terms.
5. Next comes the second issue of agricultural income disallowance wherein the assessee has claimed cash sales allegedly involving agricultural produce of Rs.2,84,865/- as against Rs.1,79,202/- in assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.1,35,100/- in assessment year 2010-11, respectively. These preceding and latter assessment years' figures appear to have been duly accepted by the departmental authorities. The fact also remains that assessee could not prove these cash sales of his alleged agricultural produce almost double than the foregoing sums. Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned disallowance/ addition of agricultural income of Rs.2,84,865/- to a lump sum amount of Rs.84,865/- with a rider that the instant estimation shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.2 lakhs in other words. 6. Next comes the third issue of unsecured loans disallowance/addition of Rs.72,000/- which involves various parties having cash amount claims of Rs.20,000/- or less in each case. 7. Learned counsel could hardly rebut both the lower authorities findings that these so called minimal cash loans could not justify the test of genuineness in the light of human probabilities as per judgment of hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs., CIT 285 ITR 801 (SC). We confirm the impugned disallowance/addition therefore. 8. Learned counsel does not press for the next issue of expenditure of disallowance of Rs.37,461/ keeping in mind smallness thereof. Rejected accordingly. 9. Coming to the assessee's house hold withdrawal addition of Rs.36,000/- as well, the very factual position continues wherein the assessee could not justifiably explain such low withdrawals. Rejected accordingly. 10. No other ground or argument has been raised before us during the course of hearing. 11. This appeal of assessee is partly allowed in above terms.”
Nitin Mohanlal Taori
Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned order dated 28/11/2018, has adjudicated and upheld the addition of ` 36,000, which was deleted by the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 19/05/2017. The learned A.R., however, referring to Para–8 of the impugned order dated 28/11/2018, submitted that the ground of appeal adjudicated in Para–9 of the impugned order did not contain any ground related to disallowance of household withdrawal of ` 36,000, and neither the such ground was taken by the assessee nor the same was discussed at the time of hearing.
The learned Departmental Representative has not objected to the submissions of the assessee.
We now adjudicate the issue once again upon reading the impugned order 28/06/2024. We find that the learned A.R. is correct to point out that the observation in Para–9 of the impugned order dated 28/06/2024, is superfluous since the same is not arising out of grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Accordingly, we proceed to rectify the same and hereby delete the Para–9, as contained in the impugned order dated 28/06/2024, passed in ITA no.314/Nag./2017, for the assessment year 2009–10. Consequently, Para–10 and 11 of the impugned order dated 28/06/2024, are hereby substituted and be read as “Para–9 and 10” respectively. The learned Departmental Representative has no objection to these changes.
The impugned order dated 28/06/2024, passed in ITA no.314/Nag./ 2017, for the assessment year 2009–10, is modified to the above extent only.
Nitin Mohanlal Taori
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off in terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/09/202428/06/2024