2026 (5) TMI 1332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), dated 28/03/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in both law and on facts. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that issuing of notice, reopening the assessment are lawful and justified. He further erred in not considering the fact that reopening cannot be made to examine/verify certain facts relating to income earned by the appellant as held by Hon'ble Courts. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that in case of the appellant, clause (a) of explanation 2 to section 147 is applicable for issue of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....claring an income of Rs. 3,17,500/-. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to put forth an explanation regarding the source of the deposits of Rs. 88,88,525/- made in her bank account with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Society Ltd. In reply, the assessee had come forth with two-fold explanation regarding the same, viz., (i) cash proceeds sourced from the sale of agricultural produce as a commission agent on behalf of farmers at different places where the branches of the cooperative society bank were situated: Rs. 63,88,525/-; and (ii) documentary evidence regarding the transfer entries: Rs. 25 lakhs. It was submitted that on the cash sale proceeds of agricultural produce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the authorities below and the material available on record. 7. Sri Narahari Biswal, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, "Ld. AR") for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the CIT(A) had though rightly appreciated that the cash deposits of Rs. 63.88 lakhs (supra) were the cash sale proceeds of the agricultural produce sold by the assessee as a commission agent on behalf of the farmers, but he had erred in quantifying the income element on the said amount @ 15% of the said amount which was highly exorbitant. The Ld. AR submitted that the solitary issue involved in the present appeal was the quantification of the income generated from the aforesaid stream of income, i.e., commission a....