TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1030
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs 26,73,000/- made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO, in invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The action of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAG is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the invocation of Section 115BBE, as being not in accordance with the relevant law. 3. The assessee craves his right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds an or before the hearing." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and his only source of income is from agricultural activities. On the basis of information available on ITBA Module that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs. 27.73 lakhs in his bank account during the demonetization period with Corporation Bank A/c No. xxxxx 150049 and no return of income has been filed, notices has been issued u/s 142(1) against which the assessee has filed documentary evidences stating the fact that he is an owner of seven acres of agricultural land where agricultural activities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al High Court and on the decision of co-ordinate Bench of the Amritsar Tribunal and also on Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal are as follows: "Shiv Charan Dass vs. CIT as reported in 126 ITR 263 (P& H HC) in this regard, it has been held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court that the onus is on the Department to show that the explanation of the assessee should not be accepted. Further, it is trite that nobody can be asked to prove a negative, as was sought to be done by the AO. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench in the case of Smt. Sandeep Kaur w/o Sh. Sukhpal Singh vs. ITO in ITA No. 157/Asr/2022 wherein your goodself has held that: "6. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the records. The Id. Counsel had agitated two issues, one is source of cash deposit in the bank and the calculation of the tax by utilizing the provision u/s 11588E which was applied on the assessee for addition u/s 69, The Id. Counsel in submission explained the deposit of cash in four stage Rs. 4 lac was deposited as per the instruction of the CBDT which the assessee is eligible to retain cash f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the id PCIT himself is not clear about the applicability of relevant provisions and in the same breath holding the Assessing officer to task by not invoking the said provisions is clearly shooting in the dark which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the order so passed therefore cannot be held as erroneous in the eyes of law." On thoughtful consideration, the implication of Section 115BBE is not relevant for the assessee. 6.1 The Id. Counsel had not pressed the ground no. 2. Accordingly, ground no. 1,3,4,58 6 ore allowed. Ground No. 7 is general in nature. Therefore, the addition amount of Rs. 10,65,000/- is quashed. 7. in the result, the appeal bearing ITA No. 157/Asr/2022 is allowed." Ravinder Singh Negi vs. DCIT in ITA No. 811 & 812/Chd/2014 (Chandigarh Bench) "12(iv) Considering the above discussion, it is proved by the assessee on record that assessee has made cash withdrawals during the year under consideration from various banks in a sum of Rs. 7.65 Cr and made re deposit of cash of Rs. 4.30 Cr in the same year out of such cash withdrawals. Thus, assessee proved that assessee was having availability of the cash for re- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-12, in the wealth tax cases of the assessee, the wealth tax returns fited by the assessee were based on the personal balance sheets of the assessee and it was the same AO who accepted the cash in hand, which was as per the balance sheet of the assessee, for wealth tax purposes. 2. No material has been brought on record by the Department to contradict the well-reasoned findings of fact recorded by the Id. CIT(A). 3. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the well versed, elaborate and reasoned order of the ld. CIT(A), which does not require any interference on our part. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are rejected. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 6. He further submitted on merits of the case that the assessee is the owner of seven acres of agricultural land and has also taken lease of agricultural land holding from one (Mr. Ajaib Singh 17 acres and Mr. Kulwant Singh 11.63 acres on lease) which are placed in paper book page no. 22 to 23 and copies of J-Form as proof of agricultural income of the assessee is also furnished before us which is also a part of the paper book in page no. 24 to 3....