SHALINDER SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO, KURUKSHETRA

PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

Karnal dated 19.12.2016 relating to assessment year 2010-

made on account of cash found deposited in the bank of the assessee which remained unexplained.

noted that despite various opportunities provided to the assessee proper explanation could not be filed of the same.

Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the entire cash

deposited in the bank of Rs.19,30,500/- to the income of the assessee.

deposits as being from agricultural income earned from ancestral agricultural land and also from the sale of trees

on the said land and further from the salary received by the assessee and his wife in cash from a college where both

were lecturers. Evidences to substantiate the above claim

were also filed. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) after going through the submissions held that the assessee had not been able to establish the source of large cash deposits with evidence ,as listed in para 4.3 of his order as under:

Date Amount 23.04.2009 Rs. 80,000/- 08.05.2009 Rs. 55,000/- 15.05.2009 Rs. 50,000/- 03.06.2009 Rs.1,40,000/- 08.06.2009 Rs. 55,000/- 20.06.2009 Rs. 40,000/- 01.10.2009 Rs. 60,000/- 08.10.2009 Rs. 42,000/- 12.10.2009 Rs. 49,900/- 03.11.2009 Rs. 60,000/- TOTAL Rs.6,31,900/-

Accordingly, the addition on account of deposits to the extent of Rs.6,31,900/- was upheld by the Ld.CIT(Appeals).

“1. That the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) has wrongly upheld the addition of Rs.631900/- on account of unexplained deposit in Bank.”

for assessee pointed out that it had repeatedly contended

before the lower authorities that the source of deposits in the bank was attributable to the salary earned by the assessee and his wife as lecturers in college and also from the agricultural income earned from the ancestral

agricultural land of the assessee’s family. The Ld. counsel

for assessee stated that certificate from the college where

the assessee and his wife were lecturers had been filed

certifying the receipt of salary in cash. The Ld. counsel for assessee also pointed out that it was stated before both the lower authorities that the assessee belonged to an agriculturist family and his father Shri Sita Ram S/o Shri

Gorkha Ram was the owner of 108.5 kanal of land at village

Songri, Tehsil Rajaund and further due to old age and illness of his father he had been given the responsibility to look after the affairs of his father’s agricultural land since

his other two brothers were settled in Indore while the assessee was the only son staying with his father. It was also stated that the land was given on lease for cultivating

to Shri Balwan Singh S/o Shri Ram Swaroop, VPO Songri,

District Kaithal and the lease amount had been received

from him. It was also stated that some matured poplar trees

had been sold and the same collected by the assessee. The evidence of ownership of the said land by the father of the assessee in the form Jamabandi was filed. The Ld. counsel

for assessee also stated that the evidence of leasing out of the agricultural land to Shri Balwan Singh was also filed by way of a letter submitted to the Tehsildar in this regard.

The Ld. counsel for assessee also contended that a cash

flow for the entire year had also been submitted to the Assessing Officer in the letter filed before him dated

contended that the source of the cash deposits had been sufficiently explained as being from the salary earned by the assessee and his wife and the agricultural income

earned. It was also stated that there were also corresponding withdrawals from the bank account in cash

and the subsequent deposits could be attributed to those

cash withdrawals also. The Ld. counsel for assessee stated

that the Ld.CIT(Appeals) had not taken cognizance of any of the documents and evidences filed by the assessee and had upheld the addition made merely on the basis of surmises

and conjectures that larger amount of cash deposits had remained unexplained. The Ld. counsel for assessee,

therefore, contended that the addition with regard to unexplained cash deposits was, therefore, not sustainable

and needed to be deleted.

of the Ld.CIT(Appeals).

giving any basis that too after necessary evidences were filed by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), we find, has passed a cryptic order merely stating that the evidences filed by the assessee were not sufficient to explain the large cash

deposits made by the assessee without pointing out the insufficiency in the evidences filed. We find that the assessee had demonstrated that he was earning salary

alongwith his wife amounting in all to Rs.2,26,680/- and Rs.2,23,200/- respectively which had been substantiated by way of salary certificate filed. We find that the assessee had also stated that he was earning lease income from the agricultural land which was in the name of the father of the assessee but who had given the assessee the responsibility

of collecting revenue earned from the same. Evidences

substantiating the ownership of the land by the father were also filed. The documents evidencing leasing out of the agricultural land was also filed. None of the above

documents have been controverted, nor any infirmity found

in the same by the CIT(Appeals). In fact, we find that the CIT(Appeals) has not even taken the pain to go through

them and has without any basis at all dismissed the above

sources as attributable to the cash deposits amounting to Rs.6,31,900/-. Moreover, we also find that the assessee had also filed a cash flow statement explaining the source of various cash deposits in the bank. The Ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred, therefore, in stating that no cash flow statement was filed by the assessee. In view of the above, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and on finding that the assessee had duly explained the source of cash deposited in the bank with proper evidences which have remained uncontroverted by the Revenue, we hold that the addition upheld to the extent of Rs.6,31,900/- on account of unexplained cash deposits is not sustainable.

We, therefore, direct deletion of the same.

allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court. (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 15th June, 2018 *Rati* Copy to: