TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay of 36 days. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay stating that the delay was due to the sickness of authorized representative. We have heard both the parties and since the delay was due to illness of the Ld.A.R and having no malafide intention, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal : 1. In respect of addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred both in facts and law in sustaining the addition without considering the fact that the family member's agricultural incomes were deposited in to the account of assessee as he is looking after those affairs. 2. In respect of addition of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account in as much as sec.68 has limited scope and applies to cases relating to unexplained cash-credits recorded in the books of accounts. 3. Ground No.5 and 6 are general in nature which do not require specific adjudication. 4. Ground No.1 is related to the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- sustained by the Ld.CIT(A). Brief facts of the case are that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that there was cash deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 13.07.2013 in the assessee's bank account with State Bank of India. The AO requested the assessee to explain the sources of cash deposits and the assessee explained that the cash deposits were made out of agricultural income in respect of mango garden of 16 acres belonging to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. 6. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee along with family members owned 16 acres of agricultural land, wherein the mango garden was grown. The sale proceeds of mango crop were deposited in the bank account of the assessee. All the family members are joint family and the entire agricultural operations were looked after by him. As and when the sale proceeds are received, the assessee deposits the sale proceeds in his bank account and meet the expenditure. The AO also did not suspect the agricultural receipts fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the family members with regard to deposit of sale proceeds of mango garden in his account, though assessee had furnished the details of land owned along with pattadar passbooks copies of which are furnished in page No.3 of the paper book. The assessee had explained the source of deposits of cash and the AO did not discharge the burden by examining the family members. Since the assessee stated that he looks after the entire agricultural operations which is common in joint families, we, do not find any reason to suspect the source of cash deposits in the bank account and the same stands explained, hence, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the addition made by the AO. Assessee's appeal on this ground is allowed. 9. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....75,000/- deposited on 13/01/2014 which was also mismatched with the sale deed. According to the AO, since, the sale deed was registered on 01/02/2014 and there was a mention in the sale deed regarding the payment at the same time, he was under the impression that the deposit made in the bank account before the date of registration was from unexplained sources and hence brought to tax u/s 68 of the Act. 10. The assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and filed confirmation from the vendor as well as rectification deed which was forwarded to the AO by the Ld.CIT(A) for his comments. The AO submitted remand report stating that it was an afterthought. The Ld.CIT(A) agreed with the AO and confirmed the addition made by the AO. 11. During....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned cash credit as addition u/s 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. The AO found mismatch of dates mentioned in the sale deed and withdrawals made by the vendor from his bank account and disbelieved the payment to the assessee and accordingly made the addition. In the instant case, the vendor has confirmed the payment of Rs. 37,50,000/- on various dates and also filed rectification deed before the Ld.CIT(A). The AO and the Ld.CIT(A) were of the view that it was an afterthought. However, the rectification deed was registered before the SRO which is a valid piece of evidence. The AO landed in a wrong confusion without considering the rectification deed. In the rectified deed, the vendor has clearly mentioned that a sum of Rs. 30,75,000/- was paid on ....