HARBHAJAN SINGH,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGRAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 255/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including 'J' Forms, land records, and commission agent accounts, to prove that the deposits were from agricultural income. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 10,34,000/- in their bank account during the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer added this amount as unexplained cash deposits. During appeal, the assessee submitted that the deposits were out of sale proceeds from crops.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the bank account were unexplained income or derived from agricultural sales.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Order The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The Assessee is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,34,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts of the Assessee.

1.

255-Chd-2024 Harbhajan Singh, Jagraon 2 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee has invited my attention to the impugned order of the Assessing Officer to submit that the assessee during the assessment proceedings could not satisfactorily explain the source of the aforesaid cash deposits. He has further invited my attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that however, during the appellate proceedings, the Assessee had duly submitted that the aforesaid deposits were out of sale proceeds received on sale of crops and the same was out of agriculture income of the Assessee.

1.

4.1 The Ld. Counsel has invited my attention to the page 7 of the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the Assessee had duly furnished the relevant evidences such as ‘J’ Form which is the form of proof of sale of crops. Apart from that, the Assessee had also produced the land records showing that the Assessee was owner of the agricultural land. The Assessee had also furnished account statement of the commission agent which clearly showed that the crop sold by the assessee was fully co-related with the ‘J’ Form and copies of the accounts of the Assessee duly showed that the Assessee had received the aforesaid payment out of sale of agricultural produce which was deposited in the bank account. The ld. CIT(A) had also called upon the remand report from the Assessing Officer in this respect. However, the Assessing Officer reported that there was some mismatch of entries.

255-Chd-2024 Harbhajan Singh, Jagraon 3 4.2 Though, there may be some mismatch of entries in the account of the commission agent, however, the fact on the file is proved that the Assessee was an agriculturist. He owned agricultural land and he sold the agricultural produce. The proof of sale of crops in the shape of ‘J’ form has also been submitted. There is evidence on the file that the Assessee has received the sale consideration also and the transaction has also been confirmed by the commission agent (‘Artia’).

5.

In view of this, it cannot be said that the amount deposited by the Assessee was from unexplained income. The addition is, therefore, not sustainable. The same is ordered to be deleted.

6.

The appeal of the Assessee stands allowed.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →