MOTIRAM KISAN KAHANDAL,GIRNARE NASHIK vs. CIT APPEAL, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 291/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim of agricultural income was not fully substantiated, the addition made by the lower authorities was excessive. A lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed just and proper.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed that cash deposits in bank accounts were from the sale of inherited agricultural land. The Assessing Officer made an addition for unexplained cash credit, partly allowing some relief.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in bank accounts are to be treated as unexplained cash credit when claimed to be from the sale of agricultural land. The extent of addition to be made for unexplained cash credits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 20.03.2024Pronounced: 16.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1059157863(1), dated 28.12.2023, in proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

“Being agricultural income which is not to be consider as business income and hence assessment demand of Rs.11,05,580/- this is a artificial demand which was 2 ITA.No.291/PUN./2024 derived by way of ex-parte assessment not giving me opportunity how cash deposited in bank of Rs.2,80,308/- and Rs.15,00,000/- cheques deposited sales of inherited land come from my father sold as agri land which is not capital assets which is exempted income hence not consider as income.

Cancellation of demand of Rs.11,05,580/-.

As far as CIT(A) is concerned I have not received physical notices and hence order passed by CIT(A) as ex-parte way and hence requested you sir please consider my appeal.

This is my prayer.”

3.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities action making sec.68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.17,80,305/- in the course of assessment herein dated 23.11.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. I make it clear that the assessee’s stand from the very beginning attributes source of his impugned cash deposits to sale of agricultural lands executed in the month of June 2011 which is nowhere in dispute as the learned Assessing Officer himself has partly allowed some relief to the extent of Rs.8 lakhs deposited in M/s. Nashik Merchants Co- op Bank made between 12th to 29th July, 2011. The Revenue fails to rebut the fact that the assessee’s impugned cash

3 ITA.No.291/PUN./2024 deposits in M/s. UCO Bank had been made between the period from 29.06.2011 to 30.10.2011 thereby giving rise to presumption that the same prima facie formed part of the sale consideration received in cash as per Mrs. Malini Rele vs. ITO [1994] 49 ITD 43 (Mum.) (TM). The fact also remains that the assessee has not provided all the relevant details in support of his stand adopted throughout so as to get the impugned claim accepted in entirety. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.2 lakhs only out of Rs.17,80,305/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be taken as precedent in any other case(s). The assessee gets relief of Rs.15,80,305/- in otherwords. Ordered accordingly.

No other ground has been pressed during the course of hearing.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →