2025 (9) TMI 513

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ands of the appellant. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the additions of Rs. 13,67,404 being agricultural income on the grounds that the appellant did not file the submissions before the AO which is contrary to the facts as the relevant details were duly furnished before the AO during the assessment proceedings. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the said agricultural income is exempt from tax. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or vary any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is individual, filed his return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18 on 31.03.2018 declaring income of Rs. 6,98,320/-. Case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the assessing officer noted that assessee in its computation of income has shown income from salary as a director of Manas Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., consultancy services, income from other sources and agriculture income. The assessee has shown agriculture income of Rs. 13,67,404/-. The Assessing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nished by assessee. The assessing officer added such cash deposit under section 69A as unexplained money and taxed the same under section 115BBE. 4. Aggrieved by the action of assessing officer, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed statement of fact as well as written submission. On the addition of cash deposit, the assessee submitted that he has withdrawn cash just before the demonetization period for purchase of land. The assessee made withdrawal of Rs. 23.00 lakhs on 31.08.2016 Rs. 2.00 lakhs on 03.09.2016 Rs. 1.00 lakhs on 09.09.2016 Rs. 1.50 lakhs on 14.09.2016 and Rs. 1.00 lakhs on 17.09.2016. Thus, the assessee made withdrawal of aggregate amount of Rs. 25.50 lakhs. Out of the said amount, the assessee deposited Rs. 23.00 lakhs on 12 & 17/11/2016 as big currency note was banned. On the addition of agriculture income, the assessee reiterated his earlier stand as taken before assessing officer. In addition to the assessee also filed that he was given Krishi Bhushan award for excellent agriculture activities by State Government. 5. The ld. CIT(A) on considering the submission of assessee recorded that various notices were issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....explained that assessee also made other withdrawal. Out of total withdrawal of more than Rs. 25.00 lakhs Rs. 15.00 lakhs were deposited on 12.11.2016 and Rs. 8.00 lakhs on 17.11.2016. The lower authorities have not appreciated the fact about such cash withdrawal. Since the planning of purchase of agriculture of land was not materialised hence there was no such evidence except oral negotiation so there is no documentary evidence. The ld. AR prayed for deleting the entire addition. To support his submission, ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: * Ajit BapuSatam vs DCIT (147 taxmann.com 222) (Mumbai - Trib),, * Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thaker vs ITO (44 ITR (T) 135) (Ahmedabad -Trib), * ACIT vs Mukesh Shah (171 taxmann.com 304) (Jodhpur - Trib), * ACIT vs Baldev Raj Charla and Ors. (121 TTJ 366) (Delhi - Trib) 7. On the other hand, ld. Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and gone through the orders of lower authorities. I find that right from the beginning, the stand of assessee is that cash deposit during de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thorities that no such evidence was furnished either during assessment or before ld. CIT(A). 11. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and gone through the orders of lower authorities. I find that in the computation of income, the assessee has claimed agriculture income of Rs. 13,67,404/- out of which the assessee has shown rent against his land pooled in AOP of Rs. 44,31,544/- and remaining of Rs. 9,35,860/- was from agriculture produce. The assessing officer treated the entire receipt as income from other sources for the want of proper evidence. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished certain details of agriculture activities and income and expenditure of agriculture activities. The assessee also claimed that he is into organic farming, hence no expenditure incurred on fertilizers and pesticides were very minimum. Maintaining of details in agriculture activities is difficult. The assessee furnished details of AOP. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the fact that assessee is engaged in agriculture activities but the same is not proved by documentary evidence. Before Tribunal, the assessee has filed computation of income of Manas Krushi Farm (AOP), financial stateme....