ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jodhpur V. Bhanwar Singh Rathore , Pali

ITA 347/JODH/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9703 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S YADAV LD
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKSHA BIRLACALD ARS
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Peak credit; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 13; 68

Judgement Text

1 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE) ./ I.T.A. NO.347/JODH/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) A CIT - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 ROOM NO.68, INCOME TAX OFFICE PAOTA, C-ROAD JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN- 342 006. / VS. BHANW AR SINGH RATHORE BAGH NIWAS, SUMERPUR ROAD VILLAGE-MANDALI, HEMAWAS, PALI RAJASTHAN-306 401 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. ABEPR-9925-L ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) & C.O. NO.02/JODH/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.347/JODH/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE BAGH NIWAS, SUMERPUR ROAD VILLAGE-MANDALI, HEMAWAS, PALI RAJASTHAN-306 401 / VS. ACIT - CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 ROOM NO.68, INCOME TAX OFFICE PAOTA, C-ROAD JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN- 342 006. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. ABEPR-9925-L ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN (ADVOCATE) & MS RAKSHA BIRLA(CA)LD.ARS. REVENUE BY : SHRI A.S. YADAV- LD. SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 05/11/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/12/2020 2 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): - 1.1 THE REVENUE IS UNDER APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2012-13 AGAINST THE ORDER OF L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-1, JODHPUR, [CIT(A)], APP EAL NO.56/2015- 16 DATED 10/07/2019, ON FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS :- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2, 61,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ACCOUNT WHICH WERE NOT SATISFACTORY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF UNDISCLO SED INCOME OF RS.51,56,263/- WHICH WAS NOT FOUND TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON IN QUIRY, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE, UPON RECEIPT OF NOTICE, HAS FILED CRO SS-OBJECTIONS ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.19,06,200/- IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION AND SUPPOR TING EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES BEYOND DOUBTS THAT CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACC OUNT OUT OF EARLIER WITHDRAWALS OF BANK ACCOUNT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION AS CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS ARE DULY VERIFIABLE FROM CASH BOOK AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT F URNISHED BY ASSESSEE. AS EVIDENT, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY DELETION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONS AS MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS AND UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE IS SIMILA RLY AGGRIEVED BY PARTIAL CONFIRMATION OF CASH DEPOSITS. 3 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 1.2 THE REGISTRY HAS NOTED A DELAY OF 254 DAYS IN A SSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS, THE CONDONATION OF WHICH HAS BEEN SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DELAY HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO ADVERSE MEDICAL CONDITIONS BEING FACED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES ARISING OUT OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. AFT ER GOING THROUGH THE CONDONATION PETITION, WE ARE INCLINED T O CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED WITH THE DISPOSAL OF APPEALS AS W ELL AS CROSS- OBJECTION ON MERITS. 1.3 WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS AND DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE JUDICIAL PR ECEDENTS AS RELIED UPON DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING HAVE DULY BEEN DELIBERATED UPON. OUR ADJUDICATION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER WOULD BE AS GIVEN IN SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. 2. FACTS ON RECORD WOULD REVEAL THAT ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL IS STATED TO BE ENGAGED AS CABLE OPERATO R, BAJRI DEALER, AGRICULTURIST ETC. AN ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 143(3) ON 27/03/2015 WHEREIN RETU RNED INCOME OF RS.22.33 LACS E-FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31/03/2013 WAS ASSESSED AT RS.357.65 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO REFLECTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.58.32 LACS WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED TO RS.6.75 LACS AND THE BALANCE RS.51. 56 LACS HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF C ROSS-APPEAL BEFORE US: - NO. PARTICULARS AMT. (RS.) 1. LARGE CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT 261.50 LACS 4 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 2. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES 51.56 LACS 3. CASH DEPOSIT IN ICICI BANK 19.06 LACS THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY DELETION OF ITEM NOS.1 & 2 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY CONFIRMATION OF ITEM NO.3 IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE SAME ARE DEALT WITH IN THE FOLLOWING PAR AGRAPHS: - 3. LARGE CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT 3.1 IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.261.50 LACS ON VARIOUS DATES IN ONE OF THE ACCOUNT MAINTAI NED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN TA BULATED IN PARA-3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE THEREOF. THE ASSESSE E, VIDE SUBMISSIONS DATED 21/01/2015, SUBMITTED PARTIAL EXP LANATION. THE CASH WAS STATED TO BE SOURCED OUT OF RECEIPTS FROM (I) FARUQUE BHAI (STATED TO BE APPOINTED BY ASSESSEE FOR DOING BUSIN ESS ACTIVITIES AND COLLECTION OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS); (II) HARI OM TRANSPORT / RAJU BHAI AGARWAL (LOAN TAKEN FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTUR AL LAND); (III) EARLIER WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE BANK; (IV) SOHAN LAL SANKHLA (COLLECTION OF BAJRI CONTRACT RECEIPTS); (V) JABBAR SINGH (TRANSACTED FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES); & (VI) AGRICULTURAL I NCOME. 3.2 HOWEVER, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE WERE FOUND TO BE UNSATISFACTORY SINCE THE EXPLANATION WAS NOT BAS ED ON ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES / DOCUMENTS. THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI FARUQUE BHAI CONFIRMED ONLY PARTIAL CASH DEPOSIT ENTRIES AN D THERE WAS HUGE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT RECORDED IN AFFIDAVIT AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. MR. SURENDRA AGARWAL F OR HARI OM TRANSPORT CO. DENIED HAVING CARRIED OUT ANY CASH TR ANSACTIONS WITH 5 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 THE ASSESSEE. NO LEDGER ACCOUNT WAS SUBMITTED IN SU PPORT OF THE TRANSACTIONS. FACTUAL ERRORS WERE NOTED IN THE AFFI DAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTY. IN SUPPORT OF DEPOSIT BY SHRI SOHAN LAL SANKHLA, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE FU RNISHED. IT WAS NOTED THAT BAJRI CONTRACT WAS WITHDRAWN ON 31/1 2/2010. REGARDING SELF CASH DEPOSIT, IT WAS NOTED THAT CASH BOOK WAS NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL I NCOME WAS NOT COMPLETELY GENUINE. THE CASH STATED TO BE DEPOSITED BY JABBAR SINGH REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. IN VIEW OF THE FORE GOING, THE SUM OF RS.261.50 LACS WAS BROUGHT TO TAX U/S 68. 3.3 DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE SHAPE OF AFFIDAVIT OF S HRI RAJU BHAI, TDS CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, GI RDAWARI JAMABANDI, SALES BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND BANK STATEMENTS ETC. THESE WERE ADMITTED U/R 46A AND WERE SUBJECTED TO REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE REMAND REPORT WAS CONFRONTED TO TH E ASSESSEE WHO ASSAILED THE STAND OF LD.AO. 3.4 THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF MATE RIAL ON RECORD, REMAND REPORT & ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCES RENDERED A FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE ASSES SEE COULD EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS WERE AS UNDER: - FURTHER, I FIND THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN APPELLANT 'S BANK ACCOUNT WERE HIS BUSINESS RECEIPTS, AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS AND HIS EA RLIER WITHDRAWALS. THE DETAILS OF HIS CASH TRANSACTIONS ARE AS UNDER:- 1. RECEIPTS FROM CABLE BUSINESS:- RS. 35,00,000/- SH. FAROOQ BHAI ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE COLLECTED REC EIPTS FROM CABLE BUSINESS AND DEPOSITED TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS OF RS.15,00,000/- ON 11.05.2011 AND RS.20,00,000/- ON 22.10.2011 INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE 6 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT SEEMS TO BE CORRECT AS THE A PPELLANT HAD SHOWN TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM CABLE BUSINESS AT RS. 45,55,000/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 2. BAJRI CESS COLLECTION CONTRACT RECEIPTS: - RS. 2 6,00,000/- THE APPELLANT COLLECTED BAJRI CESS RECEIPTS AND DEP OSITED RS.11,00,000/- ON 26.07.2011, RS. 10,00,000/- ON 28.10.2011 AND RS. 5 ,00,000/- ON 05.12.2011. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT A S THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN OTHER INCOME AT RS.60,46,500/- IN THE RETURN OF INC OME AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(ADMINISTRATION) SALES TAX CIRCLE-PALI, HAD DEDUCTED TDS OF RS. 35000/- ON SUCH CONTRACT WORK. 3. LOAN/ADVANCES FROM RAJU BHAI AGARWAL (RAJENDRA K UMAR) PROP. HARIOM TRANSPORT:-RS. 25,00,000/- THE ASSESSEE TOOK ADVANCE OF RS.25,00,000/- FROM RA JU BHAI AGARWAL (RAJENDRA KUMAR) PROP. HARIOM TRANSPORT WHO HAD DEP OSITED RS.10,00,000/- AND RS.15,00,000/- ON 02.06.2011 AND 03.06.2011 INT O THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM, THE APPEL LANT PRODUCED AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAJU BHAI WHO HAD BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX REGULAR LY. THE APPELLANT HAD ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF CREDITOR, HIS CREDITWOR THINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF TH E ACT. 4. AGRICULTURAL INCOME:-RS. 44,00,000/- : THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT THE CASH TRANSACTION OF RS.13,50,000/- ON 21.05.2011, RS.5,50,000/- ON 03.09.2011, 4,00,000/- ON 24.10.2011, 9,00,000/- ON 25.10.2011, 2,00,000/- ON 09.11.2011 AND 6,00,000/- ON 12.11.2011 WAS HIS AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS. BEFORE ME , THE APPELLANT FURNISHED THE COPIES OF THE JAMABANDI, GIRDAVARI REPORT, LEAS E AGREEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND VARIOUS SALES BILLS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.58,32,223/- IN RETU RN OF INCOME WHICH HAD NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND MADE A SEPARATE ADDITIO N OF RS.51,56,263/- TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES. THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.58,32,223/- IS F OUND JUSTIFIED WHICH IS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED WHILE ADJUDICATION OF RELEVAN T GROUND IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. HERE, THE SOURCE OF CASH CREDIT ON VARIOUS DATES AMOUNTING TO RS.44,00,000/- HAD ESTABLISHED. 5. CASH DEPOSITS FROM EARLIER WITHDRAWALS:- THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED BANK STATEMENT BEFORE ME , ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD WITHDRAWN CASH O N VARIOUS DATES, AMOUNTING TO RS.3,33,65,200/-, OUT OF WHICH RS.1,44 ,50,000/- WAS RE- DEPOSITED TO HIS ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES. THE APPELLANT HAD ESTABLISHED THE SOURCE OF CASH DE POSITS IN HIS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE AO HAD NOT CONS IDERED THIS FACT AT ALL AND SIMPLY BRUSHED IT ASIDE DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN HIS REPORT DATED 10.04.2019. AS REGARDS THE APPE LLANT'S CLAIM THAT AMOUNT OF HIS EARLIER WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT, WAS RE-DEPOSITED IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT, I FIND THAT BANK STATEMENT FURNISHED BEFORE ME DULY ESTABLISHED THAT THE DATE ON WHICH THE CASH WERE WITHDRAWN IN T HE APPELLANT'S BANK AND DATE OF DEPOSIT IN ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE HAVE CHRONOL OGICALLY PROGRESSIVE LINKAGE OF EVENTS, WHICH DULY ESTABLISHED THE APPEL LANT'S CLAIM THAT AMOUNT SO WITHDRAWN WERE UTILIZED IN RE-DEPOSITING THE SAME I N THE SAME BANK. IT APPEARS THAT DETAILS OF CASH TRANSACTION WERE BROUG HT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO, BUT INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE VERACITY OF ASSE SSEE'S EXPLANATION, THE AO 7 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE ADDITION U /S 68 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT BEFORE ME, DULY DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF PR OVING THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. 4.2.1. FURTHER, I FIND THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED U PON BY THE APPELLANT ARE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE ON HAND. THE HON'BLE RAJASTHA N HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIND MEDICAL STORES V/S CIT REPORTED IN 117 DTR (RAJ) 78 HELD AS UNDER- 'COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS . TYARYAMAL BALCHAND V (SUPRA), AFTER RELYING ON SEVERAL JUDGMENTS, ALSO U PHELD THE FINDING ABOUT PEAK CREDIT THEORY. THIS COURT IN CIT VS. ISHWARDAS MUTHA (2004) 270 ITR 597 (RAJ.) ALSO ACCEPTED THE C ONTENTION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, THE PEAK CREDIT. WHEN ANY AMOUNT IS PAID, LATER WITHDRAWN FROM THE BOOKS, WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR RE CYCLING AND ROTATION, UNLESS OTHERWISE ESTABLISHED AS INVESTED ELSEWHERE BY THE REVENUE, WE HOLD THE ASSESSEE ' WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF PEAK CREDIT WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED INSTEA D OF MAKING SEPARATE ADDITION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT. HOWEVER, WE MAY OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO COME TO A DEFINITE FINDING THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OTHER EXP ENDITURE OR INVESTMENT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO A FIND ING THAT WITHDRAWN AMOUNT WAS USED OR SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY OT HER INVESTMENT OR EXPENDITURE ' THAN THE BENEFIT OF PEAK OF SUCH CRED IT, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE,' - 4.2.2. THE HON'BLE ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF R.K. DAVE V/S I.T.O. REPORTED IN 94 TTJ 19 HELD AS UNDER:- 'THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED CASH FLOW STATEMENT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN AN AMOUNT OF RS, 45,000 ON 9TH JULY, 1990 AND 10TH JUL Y, 1990. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE AMOUNTS SO WITHDRA WN WERE UTILIZED ELSEWHERE. MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EX PLAIN THE TIME GAP BETWEEN THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN AND THE INVESTMENT IN NSCS OR WHERE THE AMOUNT WAS KEPT WOULD NOT ITSELF JUSTIFY THE AD DITION. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED ONLY IF THE S OURCE OF BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED OR IT COULD HA VE BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THE AMOUNT SO WITHDRAWN WAS UTILI ZED ELSEWHERE. THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE. THEREFORE, THERE IS JUST IFICATION FOR SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION.' CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND EVIDENCES BRO UGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT, I FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APP ELLANT HAS DULY DISCHARGED HIS ONUS BY FILING ALL POSSIBLE EVIDENCES / DETAILS TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,61,50,000/- AS UN EXPLAINED. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.2,61,50,000/- I S DELETED. THE PRESENT GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 8 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 4. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTUAL MATRIX AS ENUMERATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS W HICH WERE SUBJECTED TO REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT(A), AF TER DUE CONSIDERATION OF REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES RENDERED FACTUAL FINDING UNDER EACH OF THE HEAD SEPARATELY. THE CASH WAS SOURCED OUT OF RE CEIPTS FROM CABLE BUSINESS, BAJRI CESS COLLECTIONS, LOANS ETC. AS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND AFFIDAVIT OF THE LENDER. THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN CASH FROM THE BANK WHICH WAS QUITE MORE THAN SUBSEQUENT CASH DEPOSIT, REMAIN UNCONTROV ERTED BEFORE US. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO RENDERED A FINDING THAT THA T THE DATE ON WHICH THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE APPELLANT'S B ANK AND DATE OF DEPOSIT IN ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE HAVE CHRONOLOGICA LLY PROGRESSIVE LINKAGE OF EVENTS WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH THAT EARLIE R WITHDRAWALS WERE USED TO RE-DEPOSIT THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOU NT. THERE IS NO CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DEVIATE FROM THE FIN DINGS OF LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, CONCURRING WITH THE VIEW TAKEN I N THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE DISMISS THIS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENU E. 5. AGRICULTURAL INCOME 5.1 THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.58.32 LACS. THE ASSESSEE WAS STATED TO HAVE 348.20 BIGHA OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR CROP PRODUCTION. HOWEVER, UPON PERUSAL OF RELEVANT MATERIAL INCLUDING GIRDAWARI REPORT OF TEHSILDAR AN D STATEMENT OF PATWARI, MANDI KHURD, LD. AO OPINED THAT LESSER LAN D WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD YIELD AGRICULTURAL IN COME ONLY FOR 9 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 RS.10.07 LACS. AGAINST THE SAID RECEIPTS, 1/3 RD EXPENDITURE WAS ESTIMATED AND THEREFORE, THE NET AGRICULTURAL INCOM E WAS ACCEPTED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6.75 LACS AND THE BALANCE RS.51.56 LACS WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 5.2 HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A), IN THE LIGHT OF ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, CHOSE TO DELETE THE SAME BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 8.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND I FIND THAT TH E AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.51,56,263/- AFTER NOTICING SOME DISCREPANCIES IN CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME CONSIDERING IT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE AO HOWEVER, DISBELIEVED THE VERSION OF ASSESSEE AND RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,75,960/- AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 51,56,263/- ADDED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON T HE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF AGRICUL TURAL INCOME TO HAVE CLAIMED TOWARDS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY BY PRODUCING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE LIKE PROPER BILLS & VOUCHERS ETC. DURING APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS, APPELLANT VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION IN DISALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED APPELLA NT'S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES (SUPRA), ORAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, VARIOUS DOCU MENTS AND PAPERS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL I NCOME. THE AO THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF PATWARI FOUND THAT THE SH.JAGAT SINGH FROM WHOM THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN LAND ON LEASE, HAD NO LA ND IN THE VILLAGE MANDALI AS PER LAND RECORDS OF YEAR 2057 TO 2060. SIMILARLY , THE AO FOUND THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SH. KRISHAN KUMAR SINGH, INCORRECT A S THE SAME WAS ENTERED ON SIMPLE PAPER WITHOUT SIGNATURE OF WITNESSES. THE REFORE, THE AO HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ON THE LAND MEA SURING 17.62 BIGHA AND CALCULATED THE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS ON THE BASIS R EPORT OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON INTERNET. BEFORE ME, THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED LEASE AGREEMENT ALONGWITH AFFIDAVITS OF SH . KRISHAN KUMAR SINGH AND SH. JAGAT SINGH WHEREBY IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE LAND WAS TAKEN ON LEASE. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT FURNISHED THE COPIES OF THE JAMABANDI AND GIRDAVARI REPORT OF HIS OWN LAND AND PIECES OF LAND WHICH WERE TAKEN ON LEASE. THESE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT 'RAIDA', 'TIL' ETC . WAS GROWN ON THOSE PIECES OF LAND. THE APPELLANT PRODUCED THE SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTUR AL PRODUCE WHICH WERE SOLD AT SUMERPUR KRISHI MANDI THROUGH BROKER M/S VINAYAK TRADERS, RONAK TRADERS & OTHERS. ALL THE INFORMATION SUCH AS QUANT ITY MEASUREMENT, PRICE, TYPES OF CROPS, PAYMENT DETAILS, ETC. WAS CLEARLY M ENTIONED IN THE BILLS. WHEN ONE OF THE BROKER NAMELY M/S VINAYAK TRADERS WAS SU MMONED BY THE AO, THEY ADMITTED TO HAVE PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL PRODUC E FROM THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN DOING AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES FO R THE YEARS AND DISCLOSING MORE OR LESS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF I NCOME WHICH WERE ACCEPTED 10 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 BY THE AO. THE DETAILS OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME F ROM A.Y. 2008-09 TO 2013- 14 ARE AS UNDER:- 2008-09 23,15,611 /- 143(1) 2009-10 30,25,225/- 143(1) 2010-11 35,76,450/- ACCEPTED U/S 143(3) 2011-12 15,77,940/- 143(1) 2012-13 58,32,223/- UNDER CONSIDERATION 2013-14 65,11,095/- AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED, I FIND THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING EARNED INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. THUS, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 51,56,263/- AND TREATING IT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCE. THE ADDITION MADE AT RS. 51,56,263/- IS DELETED. THE GROUND NO. 5 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING THIS ISSUE IS, HEREBY, ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AFTER PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER, ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN ESTABLISHING THE FACT TH AT CERTAIN PIECES OF LAND WERE TAKEN ON LEASE. THE JAMABANDI AND GIRD AVARI REPORT SUPPORTED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE WAS SOLD IN THE MARKET THROUGH BROKER WHICH WAS DULY AD MITTED. IMPORTANTLY, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS SHOWN IN OT HER YEARS WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS TO BE ACCEPTED AND THE STAND OF LD. CIT(A) WAS TO BE C ONFIRMED. WE ORDER SO. 7. CASH DEPOSIT IN ICICI BANK 11 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 7.1 THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE DEPOSITED AGGREG ATE CASH OF RS.19.06 LACS IN 2 BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WITH IC ICI BANK. THE SAME WERE STATED TO BE SOURCED OUT OF PERSONAL DRAW INGS. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, T HE PLEA WAS REJECTED AND THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7.2 DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SOUG HT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT, HOWEVER, THE SAME COULD NOT FIND FAVOR WITH LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 5.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, APPELL ANT'S SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS ACTUALLY THE AMOUNT WHICH HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT REGULARLY FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. ON PERUSAL OF BANK STATEMENT S FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT WITHDRAWN ANY IDENTICAL AMOUNT WHICH WAS RE-DEPOSITED TO BANK ACCOUNT. IN SOME INSTANCES , IT IS APPARENT FROM THE BANK STATEMENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN CREDITIN G HIS ACCOUNT BY WAY OF TRANSFER, ON THE SAME DATE OR ON FOLLOWING DATES, S OME AMOUNTS WERE BEING WITHDRAWN BY HIM IN CASH. IT IS WAY BEYOND COMPREHE NSION AS TO WHY THE APPELLANT BEING A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN, WOULD TRANSF ER THE AMOUNTS TO HIS ACCOUNT AND THEN; WITHDRAW THE SAME AMOUNT; KEEP TH AT AMOUNT AT HOME FOR CREDITING THE SAME AGAIN BY WAY OF CASH ! NO PLAUSI BLE LINK, WHATSOEVER, COULD BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE CASH WITHDRAWN AND THE C ASH DEPOSITED. THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN DEPOSITING CASH BEING RECEIP TS FROM CABLE BUSINESS, CESS COLLECTION AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES TO THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. THEREFORE THE CASH DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE ICICI BANK COULD NOT BE EITHER HIS BUSINESS RECEIPT S OR AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE DATE ON WHICH THE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN FROM THE APPELLANT'S ICICI BANK ACCOUNT A ND DATE OF DEPOSIT IN SAME ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE HAVE CHRONOLOGICALLY PROGR ESSIVE LINKAGE OF EVENTS. IN ABSENCE OF THIS, THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM I S FOUND INCORRECT THAT AMOUNT SO WITHDRAWN WERE UTILIZED IN RE-DEPOSITING IN THE SAME BANK. THUS, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT REMAINS U NEXPLAINED. THEREFORE, THE AO'S ACTION OF TREATING CASH DEPOSIT WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS HEREBY UPHELD . ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO RIGHTLY ADDED RS.19,06,200/- U/S 68 OF THE IT. ACT,1961. THE APPELLANT FAILS ON THIS GROUND. THE GROUND RAISED B Y THE APPELLANT REGARDING THIS ISSUE IS, HEREBY, DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. AFTER PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER AS EXTRACTED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAIL ED TO PROVE THE 12 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT. NO PLAUSIBL E LINK, WHATSOEVER, COULD BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE CASH W ITHDRAWN AND THE CASH DEPOSITED. ALL THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS W ERE BEING CARRIED OUT THROUGH OTHER BANK AND THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO ESTABLISH CHRONOLOGICALLY PROGRESSIVE LINKAGE OF EVENTS. THER E IS NO PLAUSIBLE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DISTURB THESE FACTUAL FINDING S. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ON THIS ISSUE, WOULD NOT WARRANT AN Y INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. THE GROUND THUS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. CONCLUSION 9. THE APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS-OBJECTION STAND DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED U/R 34(4) OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. SD/- SD/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (MAN OJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 21/12/2020 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$' / THE RESPONDENT 3. % ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. % / CIT CONCERNED 5. &'#( ) , ) , ) / DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. '+,-! / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, 13 SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, JODHPUR.