TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1002
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls)-XXII has erred in law as well as on facts in treating the deposit of Rs. 17,00,000/- by cheques as deposits in cash and then taking support of various judicial decisions unwarrantedly to confirm his biased opinion; 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(Appeals)-XXII has erred in law as well as on facts in disputing and/or rejecting the following claims and documents about agricultural income of assessee of Rs. 11,24,800/- in F.Y 2005-06 and of Rs. 10,62,700/- in F.Y 2006-07 based on suspicion , highly stretched imagination and a blatant twisting of facts and decisions in judicial precedents :- * Ownership and valuation of Agricultural land ,when title deeds having been placed on record; * Production of lemons on already planted trees ,when income from sale of lemons has been appearing since many previous years; * Process of earning and receiving sale proceeds of lemons sold, when procedure duly accepted by assessing officer in his remand report and agricultural activity having taken place about five year earlier; * Distinguishing between 'assessee planted lemon trees in the land' and 'land was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnish any details and therefore the addition to the extent of that was made. Further on verification of the copy of the state bank of India account of the assessee was found that assessee has deposited INR 22,00,000/- of cash in the month of December 2006 for which no explanation was provided and therefore the learned assessing officer made the addition of the same. Consequently, assessment order u/s 143 (3) of the act was passed by the learned AO on 31/3/2007 determining the total income of the assessee at INR 4007210/-. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned AO preferred an appeal before the learned CIT - A, who confirmed both the addition. Therefore assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The learned authorised representative vehemently stated that the a. Amount of cash has been deposited in the savings bank account with the state bank of India for assessment year 2007 - 08 by the assessee and from that account only the assessee has made further investment in the partnership firm. Therefore there is a double addition, once of the source of the income and second of the application of income. b. That assessee has earned total agricultural income of INR 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal that it is merely a summary of the capital account. He submitted that it is the cash flow account which shows that wherefrom the case is generated and wherefrom that it has been spent. In view of this he submitted that both the addition made by the learned AO deserves to be deleted. He further relied upon the decision of the honourable High Court in CIT vs. LANDMARK INNOVATION (PRIVATE) LTD dated 08/08/2013 wherein it has been held that when the assessee is selling agricultural producers in cash and deposit the same account in the bank account of the assessee same cannot be added u/s 68 of the income tax act on the ground that no primary record of agricultural activities were made available. 5. He also raised an interesting argument that at the assessee is not maintaining the books of accounts; the addition made by the learned assessing officer u/s 68 of the income tax act does not apply because nothing is credited in the books of accounts. He stated that if the money is credited in the bank pass book/bank account of the assessee the provisions of section 68 does not apply as the assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts. 6. The learned Departmental r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l produce Admittedly, the assessee is having the agricultural land of more than 38 acres, the documents for which have already been submitted before the learned CIT - A. However as originally the assessee stated that he is having agricultural land of only 23 acres, despite the documents of the agricultural land holding produced before the learned CIT - A, only for the reason that assessee is initially not aware about the area of land, he disbelieved the holding of 38 acres of the land. As assessee has produced the documentary evidence of 38 acres of the land in the name of the assessee on which the agricultural activities are carried on, the land holding of the assessee cannot be denied. Therefore the learned CIT - A committed an error by not accepting the ownership of the land despite having the title deeds placed on record. 10. The 2nd issue is with respect to the production of lemon on already planted trees. It is a fact that year to year assessee is showing an agricultural land and agricultural income deriving there from. During the year the assessee produced the sale bill of 36722 kg of lemons INR 1062700. The sale bill is not disputed by the AO of learned CIT appeal but th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs to different locations. He also tried to analyze the handwriting on the balance and stated that that the handwriting is similar. He further noted that even the mention of the name of the assessee is in similar manner. It was further noted that the name of the broker/Dalal has also not been mentioned. On the basis of these findings in noted that all these 4 appeals are bogus. It is true that all these observations of the learned CIT - A on the basis of the information submitted by the assessee, however, when the learned CIT - A so much of account on the veracity of the bills, before saying that the bogus, he should have asked the assessee to either produce those parties or made independent enquiry with respect to the buyers. In absence of these it is merely an allegation is which has not substantiated. Merely on allegation and doubts the addition cannot be made. They needs to be substantiated by due enquiry. 14. Sixth issue is whether provision of section 68 applies when the assessee has not maintained the book of accounts. This issue is no more an issue of debate in view of the decision of Honourable Mumbai High court in case of Arun J Muchalla V CIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 30....