Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 1197
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (AMRITSAR BENCH)
Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, AM, Sh. Udayan Dasgupta, JM
Sh. Manish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Mehrian Bazar, Fazilka, Ward 2(4), Abohar – Respondent
I.T.A. No. 291/Asr/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA
For the Respondents: Sh. Gulzar Ahmad Wani, Sr. D.R.
The court emphasizes that assessed income from agriculture cannot be deemed unexplained without proper justification, requiring authorities to consider presented documentary evidence.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 69A and 115BBE - Appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming addition of Rs.10,45,000 as unexplained cash during the demonetization period - The appellant, an agriculturist, provided details of cash deposits claimed to be from agricultural income, yet the AO deemed it unexplained due to lack of supporting evidence - The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision despite the appellant's claims of regular cash deposits substantiated by documentary proof such as Girdawari, J forms, and bank statements - The court found no satisfactory investigation as the AO did not address these documents and remanded the case back for proper appraisal of evidence. (Paras 1-15)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and appeal background regarding unexplained income. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments by the appellant disputing additions to income upheld by the cit(a). (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observations regarding need for examination of evidence presented. (Para 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. emphasis on the conditions for declaring income as unexplained under the income tax act. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 5. final decisions made regarding remand of case for thorough assessment. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER
Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)[hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”], Delhi dated 22.03.2024 which is arising out of the Assessment Order u/s 144 dated 05.12.2019 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Abohar (In short “the AO”) in respect of Assessment Year: 2017-18.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. In the facts and circumstances the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in making additions of Rs. 10,45,000 as unexplained money, under Section 69A . The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the additions of Rs.10,45,000 made under of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the invocation of Section 115BBE , as being not in accordance with the relevant law.
3. The assessee craves his rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.”
3. Briefly the facts are that that the appellant assessee is an agriculturist having about 32 Acres of agricultural land in joint ownership with the family including an agricultural land measuring around 17 acres land in the name of the assessee himself. The AO has discussed that the assessee has explained before him, that the sources of cash deposits made in his bank account during the demonetization period, was out of his agricultural income and earlier cash withdrawals made from bank and cash in hand as on 01.04.2016. The assessee has furnished a cash flow statement to justify the said cash in hand at the time of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The assessee has also submitted copy of Girdawari as a proof of land holding, copies of J forms as a proof of sale of agriculture produce, copies of his account as well as his brother’s account in the books of his commission agent and his bank account statements. However, the AO was not satisfied with the appellants explanation and decided that assessee has failed to furnish any plausible explanation regarding the sources of cash deposits of Rs. 10,45,000/- made during the demonetization period i.e. 08.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 10,45,000/- is being treated as unexplained money of the assessee for the financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18 and is added to the income of assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . The addition of Rs. 10,45,000/- made u/s 69A is required to be charged to tax u/s 115BBE of the .
4. Being agreed with the assessment order, the appellant has filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who has confirmed the addition vide paras 6.2 to 6.4 by observing as under:
6.2 At the appellate stage also, the Appellant has not furnished any written submission in support of the grounds of appeal or the statement of facts. The AO has doubted the veracity of the cash flow statement submitted by him during the assessment proceedings. In response to the same, the appellant in his statement of income, h
