Tribunal affirms unexplained income addition for farmer, rejects additional evidence, upholds interest charges.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm the addition of Rs. 13,79,400/- as unexplained income by an illiterate farmer who deposited money in his bank account. The Tribunal rejected the additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the sale of agricultural land, emphasizing the evidentiary value of the registered sale deed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the chargeability of interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of the addition of Rs. 13,79,400/- by the CIT(A).
2. Chargeability of interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of the Addition of Rs. 13,79,400/- by the CIT(A):

The assessee, an illiterate farmer, deposited Rs. 19.50 lacs in his bank account on 06/05/2010. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 06/12/2013 based on this cash deposit. The assessee responded with a sale deed showing the sale of 2 Bigha 7 Biswa agricultural land for Rs. 6,95,600/-. The A.O. allowed this amount as credit and treated the remaining Rs. 13,79,400/- as unexplained income.

During the appellate proceedings, the assessee claimed the land was actually sold for Rs. 25,36,500/- but the sale deed was executed at the DLC rate of Rs. 6,95,600/- on the purchaser's insistence. An agreement to this effect, allegedly made before the sale deed, was not initially traceable but later submitted as additional evidence. The assessee argued that the remaining amount of Rs. 19.50 lacs deposited in the bank was part of the total sale consideration.

The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence but upheld the A.O.'s decision, noting that the agreement was not between the assessee and the actual purchaser but between the assessee and the purchaser's father, Jaipal. Moreover, the agreement lacked Jaipal's signature, diminishing its evidentiary value.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), emphasizing that the registered sale deed dated 05/05/2010, which showed a sale consideration of Rs. 6,95,600/-, carried more evidentiary value than the unregistered agreement. The Tribunal also noted that the A.O. had issued multiple summons to Jaipal for verification, but he did not comply. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 13,79,400/- as unexplained income.

2. Chargeability of Interest Under Sections 234A and 234B:

Since the main ground of appeal regarding the addition of Rs. 13,79,400/- was dismissed, the Tribunal also dismissed the appeal concerning the chargeability of interest under Sections 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act.

Conclusion:

The appeal by the assessee was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of Rs. 13,79,400/- as unexplained income and the chargeability of interest under Sections 234A and 234B. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 09th November 2020.

---