TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the order has already been passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee thereafter took prompt action for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay should be condoned. Referring to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Uddhav Dattu Marathe HUF vs. ITO vide ITA No.1514/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2016-17, order dated 17.12.2024, he submitted that under identical circumstances, the Tribunal has condoned the delay in filing of the appeal on account of receipt of such order in the wrong e-mail ID. 3. The Ld. DR heavily relied opposed the condonation application filed by the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival arguments of both sides on the issue of condonation of delay. There is no dispute about the fact that there is a delay of 519 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to non-receipt of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in the correct e-mail ID, the assessee was not aware of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... method, conditions of land transfer to firm for cultivation. iii. Details of crop cultivated as under iv. Provide month wise sales of crop as under. v. Provide cash book for the year 2016-17 vi. Provide the names and complete address of the retail outlets. (Owned by firm and franchises) vii. Provide the ledger of packing material purchased viii. Provide the details of vehicles/ name and address of transporter for vehicles used for transporting the crops to market, outlets/customers. ix. Proof of having sold the agricultural product in the market. x. Proof of having grown the agricultural product directly from any land used for agriculture purpose. 8. According to the Assessing Officer, the details provided by the assessee do not commensurate with its claim of agricultural income and cash deposits. He therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why an amount of Rs. 50,99,000/- should not be brought to tax within the meaning of section 69A of the Act and also to explain as to why an amount of Rs. 30,53,475/- should not be treated as 'Income from other sources'. The relevant show cause notice issued by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is thus noted that these expenses have been incurred towards non agricultural activities and not on cultivation. 8.1. Further you have claimed that the land was handed over to VTP Food which was under cultivation for agriculture. However on verification of return of income of the land owners for A.Y 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 it is seen that they have not shown any agricultural income any of the year. This clearly shows that the land was not under cultivation. Thus you have been failed to establish that the land was under cultivation and the so called crops were cultivated and sold in cash. 10. Cash deposits in bank on 18.11.2016 You have opened bank account in Janata Sahakari Bank, Bhavani Peth, Branch on 18.06.2016. The total credit in this account from 18.06.2016 to 27.11.2016 is Rs. 1,28, 45,773/- The same includes one time cash deposits of Rs. 50,99,000/- made on 18.11.2016 during demonetization and receipt from the partners. You have deposited cash of Rs. 3000/- from 18.06.2016 to 17.11.2016 in this account, where as cash of Rs. 50, 99,000 on 18.11.2016 during demonetization. This deposit is abnormal and not commensurate with your bank transactions in this a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to some super markets. There are no contracts or agreements with them. Regular invoicing is done to them and payments also received from them. 3. We own a TATA truck, which is appearing the fixed assests. This vehicle is used for deliveries, also some transport charges are debited to profit and loss account, some parties collect directly, Ledger of the same was attached in earlier submissions. Hence the contention that details of transportation are not provided, is incorrect. 4. Expenses incurred towards packing are also debited to the profit and loss account. Where it is sold in open market or at site no packing is required. Ledger of the same was attached in earlier submissions. Hence the contention that packing details are not provided, is incorrect. 5. A few sample bills of expenses were uploaded for your verification. Request you to kindly refer to the Balance sheet where in the fixed Assests an amount of Rs. 2.30 Crores appears as Capital Cost. This the expense incurred towards development of land. Only the expenses incurred towards cultivation like fertilizer, compost, labour, etc are claimed as expenses against agriculture receipts. 6. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed towards non agricultural activities and not on cultivation. The assessee submitted updated 7/12 extract as per this 7/12 also the nature of the land seen non irrigated. The crops shown are also not cash crops. On verification of the 7/12 extract it is seen that for the years up to 2015-16 most of the land was shown as Pad and Dongar pad" mean s hilly and uncultivated land. Whereas as per the entries from F.Y 2016-17 crop shown as Mango, Sitaphal and vegetables. Thus it is seen that the plantation was made in the year 2016-17. However it is beyond imagination that trees like Mangoes, and Sitaphal planted, groved and the yield sold in same year. As stated above the land owners i.e. the partners of the firm never showed agricultural income for any of the year in their return of income. This fact also shown that the land was not under cultivation. It is also unbelievable that such huge sale has been made in local market and the cash has been kept in hand up to 18.11.2019 when the assessee having two bank accounts. Further the amount deposited in bank on 18.11.2019 and on the same day transferred to the partner Shri. B.V. Palrecha. Thus as discussed in show cause notice the assesse f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the Assessing Officer. Moreover, he has not explained it before the CIT(A). Any legal conclusion cannot be reached, based on the explanation before some other authority. In similar circumstances, the assessee's argue against the Department that Notice u/s 148 is issued on borrowed satisfaction, i.e. at the instance of Investigation Wing. Without prejudice to this, the manner of deposit and withdrawal thereafter of Rs. 50,99,000/- also indicate that the money did not have any connection with the so called agricultural receipt of the appellant AOP. The analysis of the Assessing Officer at para 10, page 4 of the order appears to be more reasonable than the argument of the assessee. The argument of the assessee as well as the facts and circumstances related to deposit of Rs. 50,99,000/-on 18.11.2016 and that also during the demonetization period are against normal human probability. The assessee has not cooperated in enquiry by the CIT(A), which is evident from the non-compliance to the three letters issued as mentioned above. So, this addition is sustained." 12. So far as the addition of Rs. 30,53,475/- by treating the agricultural income as 'Income from other sources', he also s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me limit. 2] The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,99,000/- made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of cash deposit in the bank account during the demonetization period. 3] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,99,000/- on the ground that the assessee had not complied to the enquiries raised during the appellate proceedings. 4] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the cash deposit of Rs. 50,99,000/- in the bank account during the demonetization was beyond human probabilities and hence, addition was rightly made by the learned A.O. 5] The learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the cash deposited in the bank account of Rs. 50,99,000/- was out of the agricultural income earned by the assessee. 6] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee was carrying out agricultural operations at Village Malthan and the cash deposited in the bank account was out of the agricultural income generated by the assessee firm and therefore, the addition made of Rs. 50,99,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE is not justified and the same may kindly be delet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,359/-. Referring to the audited financials for assessment year 2018-19 i.e relevant to assessment year 2019-20, copy of which is placed at pages 273 to 291 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the Profit and Loss Statement for the year ended 31.03.2019 (page 274) and submitted that the revenue from operations have been shown at Rs. 1,62,76,836/- and other income at Rs. 21,81,135/-. He submitted that a comparison of the Profit and Loss Account for all the three years would show that the assessee is consistently showing the receipt from agricultural operations. Further in the subsequent years such agricultural income has been accepted. Referring to page 10 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the various submissions made before the Assessing Officer. Referring to page 4 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the various details filed before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC which are as under: Subject: Enquiry for the purpose of appeal proceedings-reg. 1. Brief note about the activity related to agriculture. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer by treating the same as 'Income from other sources'. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained both the additions, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee is holding around 100 acres of agricultural land, in assessment year 2018-19 the assessee has disclosed agricultural receipt of Rs. 49.12 lakh and in assessment year 2019-20 the assessee has disclosed agricultural receipt of Rs. 1.62 crore. In the two subsequent years such agricultural receipt has been accepted and nothing has been added. It is also his submission that the cash so deposited in the bank account on 18.11.2016 is on the basis of availability of cash in the Cash Book. Further, it is also his submission that when all the necessary evidences were produced before the Assessing Officer, he was not justified in disregarding the agricultural income and making the addition of Rs. 30,53,475/- apart from the addition of Rs. 50,99,000/-. 18. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact of holding of around 100 acres of agricultural land ....