TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1527
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 15.12.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was not justified in confirming addition on the basis of facts and law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) has erred in questioning/doubting the status of the appellant as agriculturist, without appraising the fact that the appellant is basically an agriculturist since birth and his status as an agriculturist has never been matter of dispute before the Ld.AO. 3. The Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of cash deposits during demonetization perio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shree Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. wherein the assessee has sold sugarcane from 2007 to 2017 of Rs.1.20 crore. The assessee submits that the agriculture income is sufficient to justify the cash deposit. The Assessing Officer on further verification of details, noted that the assessee has accepted that he has received 50% cash and 50% in cheque from Shree Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandli Ltd. The Assessing Officer on verification of bank statement of assessee noted that assessee has made various withdrawals on 24.08.2016 and 29.08.2016, meaning thereby that the assessee has no cash-in-hand on those days. On the aforesaid observation, the Assessing Officer issued fresh show cause notice to the assessee. In the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by assessee. In assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 the assessee has income from partnership firm as well as agricultural income total business income of assessee is Rs.11,57,582/- and net agricultural income is Rs.11,71,965/-. Thus, assessee failed to prove source of cash deposits satisfactorily. Further aggrieved, assessee has present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) for the assessee and Ld. Senior-Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue. The Ld.AR for the assessee submits that assessee is a partner in a firm and also doing agricultural activities. The assesse along with his family members owned more than 13 hectare of land. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....) Ltd. [2020] 117 taxmann.com 745 (Raj) ⮚ Avani Exports vs. CIT 23 taxmann.com 62 (Guj) ⮚ CIT vs. S.A. Wahab (1990) 48 Taxman 362 (Kerala) ⮚ Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (1966) 60 ITR 262 (SC) 5. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that he has substantiate the cash deposits, yet to avoid the long drawn process of litigation, some token disallowance may be sustained. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that Assessing Officer has not specified in assessment order for taxing the addition under section 115BBE of the Act so the assessee has not raised such grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A), however, as per computation sheet, the Assessing Officer has taxed the addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d needs no adjudication. Ground No.3 relates to addition of cash deposits of Rs. 20.00 lacs. I find that there is no dispute that assessee is a partner in a firm, namely, M/s Jay Khodiyar Rayons. Further, I find that assessee has shown regular agricultural income while filing his return of income, which has been accepted by Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order. Considering the fact that neither Assessing Officer investigated the facts nor gave any specific finding on various submission and evidence furnished by assessee. Similarly, the assessee has also failed to fully discharge the onus in proving the source of entire cash in hand as claimed by the assessee. Thus, in such circumstance, in order to avoid the possibility of revenue leakage an ad....