TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 14,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well in law, on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 3,56,880/- by treating agricultural income as income earned from other sources. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the curse of hearing of the appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for assessment year 2016-17 on 30.01.2017 declaring income of Rs. 3,53,170/-. The assessee also shown an agricultural income of Rs. 4,46,100/- for tax rate purposes. The case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has shown unsecured loan of Rs. 14.00 lakh availed from three persons; loan of Rs. 5.00 lakh from Nareshbhai Vashrambhai Balar, Rs. 4.00 lakh from Jentibhai Jethabhai Kotadiya and Rs. 5.00 lakh from Subhashgiri M. Goswami respectively. The Assessing Officer in order to verify the genuineness of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessing officer recorded that assessee vide submissions dated 181.20118 submitted that he has received back on account of loan advance given to Subhashgiri M Goswami during earlier year and assessee, but, he has not furnished any details regarding bank statement / confirmation. For lender Jentibhai Jethabhai Kotadiya, the assessing officer concluded that notice issued to him was returned back thus there was lacuna in the story of assessee is not reliable. The Assessing Officer recorded that assessee had claimed to have received Rs. 2.00 lakhs on 01.04.2015 and in turn lender had given an amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs to the assessee, the balance of Rs. 3.00 lakhs were paid by assessee during the year itself. The assessing officer held that the theory of assessee regrading loan and advance is full of lacunas and is not reliable. The assessing officer held that all three lenders have no capacity for granting unsecured loan and added Rs. 14.00 lakhs under section 68 of the Act. 4. On other issue of agricultural income, Assessing Officer held that in earlier assessment year, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 1,58,400/-, however, in the current assessment year agric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holding allowed only 1/5th of agricultural income out of total agricultural income of Rs. 4,46,100/-. The assessee furnished details of agricultural holding, which was accepted by Assessing Officer as agricultural activities were carried out by assessee during the year under consideration. Mere fact of co-owners of the agricultural land does not mean that income from such land has to be disturbed in the ratio of ownership of such land. The assessee prayed for delating both the additions. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee upheld the addition of unsecured loan under section 68 of the Act by taking inconsistence view. At one place, in para-4.4 of his order recorded that addition under section 68 is unsustainable as evidence relating to loan is not doubted by assessing officer. The book of assessee was not rejected under section 145(3) of the Act. On the other place, ld. CIT(A) in para-4.5 held that all the persons from whom advance was received failed to file confirmation in response to notice issued under section 133(6) or notice remained unserved, and the lenders have meagre income as compared to give loan amount. The creditworthiness of the parties ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 280 ITR 512 (Guj) • CIT vs. Pragati Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (2005) 278 ITR 170 (Guj) 9. On the addition of agricultural income as "income from other sources", the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer doubted the agricultural income on taking view that agricultural income in preceding assessment year was much less than agricultural income declared in the assessment year under consideration. The assessing officer also held that no supporting evidence was furnished by assessee. The assessee furnished details of agricultural holding and other corroborative evidence. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer on the basis of evidence of agricultural holding was of the view that assessee is having 1/5th share in the joint agricultural holding therefore, Assessing Officer allowed agricultural income to the extent of 1/5th income out of total agriculture income declared by assessee. Once the agricultural holding is accepted by the Assessing Officer and the assessee claimed that he has earned agricultural income and Assessing Officer has no right to disturb agricultural income on the basis of ratio of holding of agricultural holding. The dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer has not doubted the evidence relating to the loan and not rejected the books of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) again held that assessee failed to establish creditworthiness of creditors. I find that identity was not disputed by the Assessing Officer. Considering the fact that assessee has discharged his primary onus in furnishing complete details to prove the genuineness of such transactions and the Assessing Officer has not examined the lenders nor brought any adverse material. The entire transactions took place through banking channel, therefore I do not find any justification for making such addition. In the result, ground No.1 of appeal raised by assessee is allowed. 12. Ground No.2 relates to addition of Rs. 3,56,880/- by treating agricultural income as "income from other sources". The Assessing Officer made addition by taking view that in the previous assessment year, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 1,58,400/-, however, in the current assessment year, the assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 4,46,100/-. The Assessing Officer further held that no reason for substantial increase in assessee's agricultural income was explained. And that o....