Smt. Bovilla Sreelatha, Bellary V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 377/BANG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6005 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V. SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

ITA No.377/Bang/2022 Smt. Bovilla Sreelatha, Bellary IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.377/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Bovilla Sreelatha No.10, Havambavi Siruguppa Road Ashok Nagar Bellary Karnataka PAN NO : BDLPS7641N Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle 1(3) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Hearing : 18.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 28.3.2022. 2. First ground of appeal is with regard to sustaining addition of Rs.16,96,823/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A) being the opening cash on hand claimed by assessee for which statements were filed in support said cash on hand. 3. Facts of the case are that the assessee shown opening cash balance as on 1.4.2014 at Rs.16,96,823/-. The opening cash balance shown by assessee as on 1.4.2010 was Rs.1,86,322/-. According to the lower authorities, there was no basis for showing such huge ITA No.377/Bang/2022 Smt. Bovilla Sreelatha, Bellary Page 2 of 4 amount of Rs.16,96,823/- as opening balance and it was observed by lower authorities that the claim of assessee was not substantial with any documentary evidence. Being so, the lower authority observed that the assessee has filed the belated return for the assessment year 2015-16 on 11.1.2017 to go out of demonetization process so as to account the unaccounted income of some others by showing sufficient cash balance was available at the beginning of financial year 1.4.2015. Accordingly, the addition made by AO on this count was sustained by Ld. CIT(A). Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee filed a copy of balance sheet as on 31.3.2015 and submitted that the capital account balance shown by assessee as on 31.3.2015 was at Rs.27,32,88,929/- and also submitted that the assessee has been filing the wealth tax returns in earlier year and the assessee having sufficient sources as seen from the balance sheet as per which the total assets of the assessee as on 31.3.2015 was at Rs.28,82,44,264/-. In the assessment year 2015- 16, assessee was aged around 45 years and the cash balance shown by assessee as opening balance as on 1.4.2015 was at Rs.16,96,823/- and it cannot be doubted by the department unless brought on any contrary evidence against the claim of assessee. The contention of Ld. D.R. is that the balance sheet filed by the assessee before the authorities was only made belief story and self-serving document and the entries therein were not substantial by any positive evidence and being so, it cannot be relied upon. In our opinion, once the assessee filed the balance sheet for the assessment year under consideration. It is the duty of the AO to examine the correctness of the same before rejecting it. In the present case that exercise was not carried out either by AO or by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, in the interest of justice, I inclined to remit this issue in dispute to the ITA No.377/Bang/2022 Smt. Bovilla Sreelatha, Bellary Page 3 of 4 file of AO for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate this claim with regard to entries appearing in the balance sheet with supporting documents. With this observation, I remit the issue to the file of AO for reconsideration. 5. Next issue in this appeal is with regard to treating the agricultural income of Rs.2,84,561/- as taxable income. The contention of the assessee is that assessee has earned agricultural income from the vast land owned by assessee. 6. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. submitted that assessee has not furnished any supporting documents before the lower authorities and only produced Tahsildar certificate. In this case, assessee has to substantiate the earning of agricultural income at Rs.2,84,501/- with supporting documents i.e. details of land holdings, crops grown, sale of crops and various expenditure incurred by the assessee to carry out the agricultural operation in said land. With this observation, I remit the issue to the file of AO for reconsideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18 th Aug, 2022 Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 18 th Aug, 2022. VG/SPS ITA No.377/Bang/2022 Smt. Bovilla Sreelatha, Bellary Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.