AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent assessees, for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Since common issue arises for consideration in these appeals, we heard all these appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order. 2. In I.T.A. Nos.991 & 992/Mds/2014, the admitted tax is less than Rs. 10 lakhs. In view of the circular of CBDT in Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that these two appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable before this Tribunal. Accordingly, I.T.A. Nos.991 & 992/Mds/2014 are dismissed. 3. Now coming to I.T.A. No.993/Mds/2014, the first issue arises for consideration is with regard to addition of Rs. 8,07,747/- towards inflation of purchase of rice. 4. Dr. B. Nischal, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddress of the farmers. Referring to the dates mentioned in the bought note, the Assessing Officer observed that the period of yielding is different and the farmers could not sell their products at any time when the bills were raised. According to the Assessing Officer, the agriculturists could not preserve their paddy and sell the same in a later stage. According to the Ld. counsel, the paddy can be very much stored and it can be sold at any point of time. Since the purchases are made from farmers, the assessee cannot be expected to get any purchase bill for purchase of paddy from agriculturists. If the disallowance is made as proposed by the Assessing Officer, then the gross profit of the ratio would go to 52% which is abnormal. Referring ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... individual from whom the paddy was purchased. It is not necessary to mention their complete address of the farmers who are living in the village. Each and every agriculturist can be very much identified by referring to their individual name and the village. Therefore, the Assessing Officer may not be justified in saying that the bought note does not contain complete name and address of the farmers. 7. The next contention of the Assessing Officer appears to be that the farmers could not preserve their paddy and sell in a later stage. The argument of the Assessing Officer is farfetched. Paddy is not a perishable commodity. The paddy harvested by the agriculturists can be stored for a reasonable period of time. At the best, the moisture co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... When the assessee could not explain the source of deposit, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) ought not have deleted the addition. 10. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that there was an addition of Rs. 4,55,000/- towards unexplained cash deposit in bank account. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition accepting the available funds to the extent of Rs. 5,23,773/- as on 31.03.2007. But, this fact needs to be verified. Further, the Ld.counsel submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. 11. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peals) found that the loan was given by the assessee to his wife by way of cheques. The CIT(Appeals) found that since the loan was advanced through banking channel, merely because the loan was not reflected in the balance sheet that cannot be a reason to disallow the claim of the assessee. According to the Ld. D.R., the fact that the loan said to be given to the assessee's wife Smt. Punitha Balakrishnan is not reflected in the balance sheet is not disputed. Therefore, the amount said to be receivable is questionable. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly assessed the same as unexplained loan and advance. 14. On the contrary, Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that during the year under consideration, a sum ....