HARBHAJAN SINGH,JAGRAON V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGRAON

ITA 255/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Harbhajan Singh, the appellant, contesting an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 10,34,000 to his income for the Assessment Year 2017-18, citing unexplained cash deposits in his bank accounts. The appellant argued that these deposits were proceeds from the sale of crops, a source of agricultural income. The Tribunal considered evidence such as 'J' Forms, land records, and commission agent statements, which correlated the deposits with agricultural sales. Despite some reported mismatches in entries by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated the agricultural origin of the deposits, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472626 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 04-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI KUMAR

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 255/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Harbhajan Singh, Sardarpura, Jagraon, Ludhiana 142026 बनाम The ITO, Jagraon èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CWHPS1237C अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by :Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 04.11.2024 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,34,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts of the Assessee. 255-Chd-2024 Harbhajan Singh, Jagraon 2 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the Assessee has invited my attention to the impugned order of the Assessing Officer to submit that the assessee during the assessment proceedings could not satisfactorily explain the source of the aforesaid cash deposits. He has further invited my attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that however, during the appellate proceedings, the Assessee had duly submitted that the aforesaid deposits were out of sale proceeds received on sale of crops and the same was out of agriculture income of the Assessee. 4.1 The Ld. Counsel has invited my attention to the page 7 of the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the Assessee had duly furnished the relevant evidences such as ‘J’ Form which is the form of proof of sale of crops. Apart from that, the Assessee had also produced the land records showing that the Assessee was owner of the agricultural land. The Assessee had also furnished account statement of the commission agent which clearly showed that the crop sold by the assessee was fully co-related with the ‘J’ Form and copies of the accounts of the Assessee duly showed that the Assessee had received the aforesaid payment out of sale of agricultural produce which was deposited in the bank account. The ld. CIT(A) had also called upon the remand report from the Assessing Officer in this respect. However, the Assessing Officer reported that there was some mismatch of entries. 255-Chd-2024 Harbhajan Singh, Jagraon 3 4.2 Though, there may be some mismatch of entries in the account of the commission agent, however, the fact on the file is proved that the Assessee was an agriculturist. He owned agricultural land and he sold the agricultural produce. The proof of sale of crops in the shape of ‘J’ form has also been submitted. There is evidence on the file that the Assessee has received the sale consideration also and the transaction has also been confirmed by the commission agent (‘Artia’). 5. In view of this, it cannot be said that the amount deposited by the Assessee was from unexplained income. The addition is, therefore, not sustainable. The same is ordered to be deleted. 6. The appeal of the Assessee stands allowed. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on 03.12.2024. Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) Judicial Member “आर.क े.” आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयआͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "