TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 919
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e lower appellate order deleting section 68 addition of unexplained cash credits made by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 29-12- 2010. 3. We come to relevant facts first. The assessee-an individual derives interest, commission and agricultural incomes. He filed return on 25-03-2009 declaring income of Rs. 1,20,900/- along with agricultural income of Rs. 1,87,500/-. The Assessing Officer took up scrutiny. He noticed cash deposits in question totaling to Rs. 39 lacs in assessee's various bank accounts. The Assessing Officer sought to know the source thereof. The assessee's main plea was that he had advanced these sums to six persons namely; S/Sh Dulabhai Makanbhai, Geetaben Rameshbhai, Chhotubhai, Hasmukhbhai, Rameshbhai and Hemant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ources of income in the F.Y. 2006-07. Secondly the AO did not dispute the fact that said advances were given by cheques (banking channel) to four farmers out of six and advanced to remaining two farmers viz. Hemant I. Patel and Ramesh N.-Patel was given in cash by the appellant. Thirdly, it is on records that the appellant insisted cash repayment instantly from the farmers to-whom the advances were given, to make payment to DRT (Debt recovery Tribunal) for purchase of a property. The cash payment was insisted by the appellant to avoid delayed payment to DRT which could result in cancellation of the new deal with DRT for the purchase of property at Itrava village. There is a palpable reason for the appellant to ask for instant payment. I hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me as well as agricultural land holding. iv. Copies of the Form No.7/12 anf 8/A abstracts showing the agricultural land holding of the six farmers which they intended to sale to the appellant and which deal subsequently was cancelled during the year under reference. v. Proofs with reasons why the appellant insisted cash repayment instantly from the farmers as the appellant wanted to make payment for purchase of another property to DRT (Debt recovery Tribunal) and had the farmers made repayment through cheque then the delay in the process of clearance of cheque would have resulted in cancellation of the new deal of the appellant with DRT for purchase of another property at Itrava village. vi. The relevant abstract ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the parties are not genuine. In is well settled law that the appellant cannot be asked to prove source of source of income to qualify the reasonableness as required by sec.68 of the Act. In this case, the facts remain undisputed that the appellant had advanced those 6 parties for purchase of land from it's known source of income. When the advances were returned by them, why should the appellant pump his money for the same purpose. It is on record that the appellant did not buy the land from them even after lapse of 4 years indicates that the refund of money takes the colour of genuineness. It is also relevant to mention here that when properties are purchased through DRT auction one has to make prompt payments as directed by the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d their advances to the assessee in the impugned assessment year. Ld. CIT(A) further records a finding a fact that the assessee successfully linked the payment in question in case of each party. The extra-ordinary circumstance forming primary reason of cash payment is that there were some DRT proceedings wherein the assessee was in urgent need of money. We notice that all the relevant evidence forms part of the case file. Revenue fails to rebut any of the CIT(A)'s findings with the help thereof. We find no reason to interfere in well reasoned lower appellate findings. This first substantive ground fails accordingly. 5. We come to Revenue's latter substantive ground seeking to revive unexplained cash credits addition of Rs. 13 lacs i.e. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant had filed evidence in support of the said transaction. As mentioned above, satisfaction must be derived from relevant factors on the basis of proper enquiry. There are plethora of judgements which have laid down that merely rejection of explanation without proper enquiry is invalid, two cases Devamani atha vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 837 (Ori), Seth Textile vs. ITO 126 Taxman 34 (Mumbai) are cited here. It is a settled law that an assessee is not required to establish source of the source and will be discharged of his burden if he proves the source of the credit appearing in his book which the appellant has done in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no addition can be made by an Assessing Officer on the basis that....