SHREI MEHTAB SINGH WADALA , AMRITSAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 (3), AMRITASR

ITA 232/ASR/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1224 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 232/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mehtab Singh Wadala A-287, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar-143001 [PAN: AALPW 5337M] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Amritsar CR Building, Amrisar Punjab-143001 (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Sh. Yashender Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 29.05.2024 03.07.2024 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 15/06/2023 passed by ld. National faceless Appeal Centre [In short the CIT(A)/NFAC], Delhi which is arising out of the assessment order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward, 5(3), Amritsar under section 143(3) of the 2 ITA No. 232/Asr/2023 Mehtab Singh Wadala v. ITO Income Tax Act, dated 24/12/2019 in respect of assessment year 2017 18 wherein the appellant has challenged confirmation of addition of Rs. 5,43,434/- as unexplained money made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts of the case regarding the assessee was an agriculturist and he along with his family was engaged in agriculture cultivation on the family-owned substantial agricultural land. The Ld. AR argued that the necessary details of the agricultural land holding along with details of agricultural income were furnished before the authorities below to substantiate the source of the disputed cash deposited in the bank account for making the payment of disputed credit card bills amounting to Rs.7,50,000/-.The Ld. AR further argued that CIT appeal has grossly erred in confirming the addition by restricting to the extent of Rs. 5,43,434/- without rebutting the cash flow statement duly supported with the documentary evidence of agricultural land holding and corresponding agricultural income thereof. In support of its contentions, Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision delivered by the coordinate bench in the case of Sri Ramandeep Singh Sidhu Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 1(3), Bathinda 3 ITA No. 232/Asr/2023 Mehtab Singh Wadala v. ITO in ITA number 311 and 84 ASR 2019&2021 respect of assessment year 2009-10. 3. The ld. DR relied on the order of ld. CIT(A). 4. Heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record, written submissions and citations filed before us. It is admitted and undisputed fact on record that the assessee was engaged in agricultural activity in joint ownership with family members, for the agriculture income earned on yearly basis and for that all the necessary details have been furnished but neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A), has doubted that the agricultural income from the agriculture land owned in joint ownership by the family. Mere allegation by the judicial and quasi-judicial courts that it was being not in the possession of the assessee and no credible evidence produced is not sufficient to reject the claim of the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have disproved the claim of the appellant by controverting the genuineness of the land holding and agricultural income thereof with corroborative material evidence before arriving at the conclusion in concurring with the finding of the AO. 5. From the record, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely suspected the possession of the size of land holding used for agricultural 4 ITA No. 232/Asr/2023 Mehtab Singh Wadala v. ITO cultivation on the basis of joint ownership without rebuttal to the evidence filed on record or contentions raised by the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have brought on record corroborative documentary evidence by way of examining the issue of share of family member's in the income from the agricultural cultivation from the agricultural land held in joint ownership. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to disprove the claim of the cash flow and agricultural income of the appellant. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the documentary evidences regarding cultivation, computation of agriculture Income and cash flow filed by the appellant in the appellate proceedings before him. In our view, the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- shown as agricultural income by the assessee from sale consideration of the agricultural produce is quite reasonable considering the size of land holding, and calculation sheet before the lower authorities. 6. The coordinate bench in the case of Sri Ramandeep Singh Sidhu (Supra) observed that where assessee deposited cash in his bank account and claimed that amount was deposited out of agricultural income earned and since assessee in joint ownership with family members owned acres of agricultural land including few acres in his individual ownership but Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to disprove cash flow statement filed by assessee, impugned addition would be liable to be deleted. 5 ITA No. 232/Asr/2023 Mehtab Singh Wadala v. ITO 7. In the above view, we hold that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse to the facts on record. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. Rs.5,43,434 confirmed by the CIT(A), u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act 1961, is deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.07.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Udayan Dasgupta) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order