TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law which arises for consideration is:- "Whether the order of the Tribunal suffers from any perversity and whether it is sustainable in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances keeping in view the ownership of the agricultural land in the hands of the appellant." The appellant-assessee filed his return of income on 07.05.2004 wherein, a sum of Rs. 40,670/- was declared as income apart from agricultural income to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The returned income was accepted on 13.02.2006. Subsequently, on account of the cash deposits of Rs. 7,23,000/- in the savings account of the assessee, the source of the said cash deposit was sought to be explained by the revenue. The explanation of the assessee was that he was owner of 20 acres and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... past savings and unaccounted money in agricultural income apart from levying penalty proceedings separately vide order dated 26.10.2011. The appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 22.05.2013 on the ground that he had not been able to furnish any concrete evidence regarding the transactions noted on the letter pad of the commission agent and whether the same were true and correct since the said firm had denied having purchased any fruit from the appellant. The addition was thus, upheld by holding that the source of cash deposits had not been discharged by producing any positive evidence. In the appeal before the Tribunal, challenge was raised to the notice dated 10.02.2011 under Section 148 of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from where the commission agent was located. The factum of the assessee owning 20 acres and 7 kanals of agricultural land was never in doubt and a specific plea right from day one was that out of the said land, 8 acres was dedicated to an orchard. In such circumstances, the onus of proof was wrongly put upon the assessee mainly because of cash deposits of Rs. 7,23,000/-, which have been now added to his income as income from undisclosed sources. The assessee was never given a proper opportunity to cross examine or rebut the stand of the commission agent who was at that point of time was on the receiving end of the department since an inquiry was being made against him as to how he had made cash payments of such huge amount which had not be....