Mr. George Kutty, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4247/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4726 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JM ITA NO. 4247/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010 - 1 1 MR. GEORGE KUTTY, C/O M/S OASIS TOURS INDIA (P) LTD., C - 40, MIDDLE CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110001 VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 13(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A JPK4056H ASSESSEE BY : SH. MANISH MALIK, ADV. & SH. VINOD K UMAR, FCA REVENUE BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 10 .0 8 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 .08 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.05 .2016 OF LD. CIT(A) - VII , NEW DELHI . 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.19,42,500/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 3 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRI EF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE E - FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.07.2011 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.3,56,878/ - WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AT THE RETURNED INCOME. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ITA NO . 4247 /DEL /201 6 GEORGE KUTTY 2 PROCEED INGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.15,69,500/ - UP TO 31.03.2010 IN HIS SAVING ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK LTD., CONNAUGHT PLACE BRANCH, NEW DELHI. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF ALL THE BANK ACCO UNTS ALONGWITH BANK STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2009 TO 31.03.2010 AND ALSO PROVIDE FOR NARRATION OF DEBITS AND CREDITS SIDE ENTRIES ABOVE RS.20,000/ - . IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE ON 10.12.2012 FILED THE COPY OF SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 14179 MAINTAINED WI TH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI . THE AO AGAIN ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE REQUISITE DETAILS EXCEPT COPY OF SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK LTD. WHERE CASH WAS DEPOSITED. TH E AO AGAIN ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN CASH IN SAVING ACCOUNT AS PER AIR INFORMATION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VILLAGE CHETHIPZHA, STATE KERALA HAVING AN AREA OF 0.66 HECTARE. HE ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 31.01.2013 ISSUED BY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THE RUBBER BOARD, JAIL ROAD, KOTYAM. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE GAVE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ON PATTA (LEASE) TO FARMERS ON ANNUAL BASIS AND WHEN EVER HE VISITED THE VILLAGE, HE COLLECTED THE PRICE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS WHICH ANNUALLY CAME TO ABOUT RS.19,00,000/ - AND AFTER COLLECTING THIS AMOUNT HE DEPOS ITED THE AMOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES IN THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF THE AGREEMEN T DATED 25.08.2004 WITH THE FARMER AND ITA NO . 4247 /DEL /201 6 GEORGE KUTTY 3 CLAIMED THAT HE HAD GIVEN A SUM OF RS.19,00,000/ - IN THAT PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ALSO FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO A GAIN ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, CERTIFICATE OF CONCERNED P AWTARI OR TESILDAR FOR S OWING OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND ALSO SALE FORM NO. 10J BUT NOTHING WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, CREDITWORTHINESS AND IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE MONEY HAD BEEN RECEIVED. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REVEALED THAT HE HAD NOT SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN LAST FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2009 - 10 AND EVEN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2009 TO 31.03.2010 BUT THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS SHOWING AN OPENING BALANCE OF RS.21,48,000/ - WHICH HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK DURING ALMOST WHOLE OF THE YEAR. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS/AMOUNT RECEIVED ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS . HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF PRODUCTION/SALES AMOUNT EVEN AFTER PROVIDING ENOUGH OPPORTUNITIES AN D NOW THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE NEXUS OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN HIS SAVING ACCOUNT ITA NO . 4247 /DEL /201 6 GEORGE KUTTY 4 FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN THE GARB OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AO HELD THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT, WHICH THE ASS ESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE IN ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE SUM OF RS.15,69,500/ - AND RS.3,73,000/ - DEPOSITED IN CASH IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK LTD. HAD BEEN HELD TO BE EARNED FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS.19,42,500/ - WAS MADE. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 5.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND IS REPRODUCED VERBATIM AS UNDER: GROUND NO. 2 ASSAILS THE ADDITION OF RS.19,42,500/ - U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FILED EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT HE IS THE OWN ER OF 0.66 HEC. OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VILLAGE CHETHIPZHA IN THE STATE OF KERALA WHICH WAS UNDER CULTIVATION AND RUBBER WAS PRODUCED THEREFROM. APART FROM THE PRODUCTION OF RUBBER, THE TREES REMAINING AFTER PRODUCTION OF RUBBER WERE SOLD AS TIMBER. TO PRO VE THIS FACT, THE APPELLANT FILED A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RUBBER BOARD WHICH IS A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT BODY FUNCTIONING UNDER THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF IN DIA. THE SAID AGENCY HAS VERY CLEARL Y CERTIF IED THE OWNERSHIP OF 0.66 HEC. O F LAND IN VILLAGE CHETHIPZHA AS BEING VESTED WITH THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE CERTIFICATE ALSO PROVES BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE SAID LAND WAS UNDER CULTIVATION AND THAT BEING THE CASE, RUBBER PRODUCTION AND TIMBER PRODUCTION HAD TAKEN PLACE / IS TAKING PLACE AS ITA NO . 4247 /DEL /201 6 GEORGE KUTTY 5 AND WHEN THE TREES ARE FIT FOR EXTRACTION OF RUBBER. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PRODUCED AGREEMENT WITH THE FARMER WHO IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT HAD TO GIVE THE APPELLANT A SUM OF RS.19.00 LACS IN SEPTEMBER, 2008. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOO D THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THERE IS UNFORTUNATELY LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND IN RESPECT OF INCOME EARNED FROM CULTIVATION OF RUBBER. ONE IMPORTANT FACT WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT FROM THE AGREEMENT IS THAT THERE ARE AS MANY AS 510 TREES AVAILABLE F OR SLAUGHTER TAPPING AS WELL AS FOR TIMBER FROM WHICH THE FARMER DERIVES INCOME OUT OF WHICH RS.19.50 LACS WERE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. IT IS NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS OF RUBBER PRODUCTION AND HOW RUBBER TREES ARE GROWN AND WHEN THEY ARE READY FOR S LAUGHTER TAPPING FOR RUBBER PRODUCTION AND THEREAFTER FOR TIMBER. THE APPELLANT IS ENCLOSING AS ANNEXURE - 3 TO THIS SUBMISSION A WRITE UP ABOUT THE PROCESS OF RUB BER PLANTATION/PRODUCTION. THE WRITE - UP IS TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE RUBBERBOARD.ORG .IN OWNED BY T HE STATE OF KERALA. ON A PERUSAL OF THE WRITE UP AFOREMENTIONED, IT IS SEEN THAT RUBBER PRODUCTION NORMALLY STARTS AFTER THE RUBBER TREES ARE NURTURED AND GROWN FOR A PERIOD OF 4 TO 5 YEARS FROM ITS CULTIVATION. THIS EXPLAINS WHY INCOME FROM RUBBER PLANTA TION ARISES ONLY AFTER THE 5TH OR 6TH YEAR OF CULTIVATION. THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE PAST 4 YEARS IS THUS INCORRECT AS THE RUBBER TREES ARE NOT FIT FOR RUBBER OR TI MBER PRODUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE APPELLANT'S CASE THAT THE ENTIRE CULTIVATION HAS BEEN DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 25.08.2004 ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT WITH THE LOCAL FARMER. THE AGREEMENT STIP ULATES THAT THE FARMER HAS TO 'PAY THE APPELLANT RS.19,50,000/ - BEFORE THE 30TH SEPT., 2008 I.E. BEFORE THE CUTTING OF THE RUBBER TREES FOR TIMBER. IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, THE APPELLANT HAS AGREED TO TAKE ITA NO . 4247 /DEL /201 6 GEORGE KUTTY 6 RS.19,50,000/ - IRRESPECTIVE OF THE EXPENSES INCU RRED ON CULTIVATION, RECEIPTS IN TERMS OF RUBBER SALES OR RECEIPTS IN TERMS OF TIMBER SALES. ALL THESE HAVE TO BE INCURRED OR RECEIVED BY THE FARMER. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IS NOT CONCERNED WHETHER THE FARMER HAS SOLD THE TIMBER AND RUBBER FOR A PR OFIT O R LOSS AND HOW THE FARMER HAS CULTIVATED THE LAND FOR PRODUCTION OF RUBBER AND SUBSEQUENTLY TIMBER. IT IS, THEREFORE, IRRELEVANT TO PRODUCE THE LAND REVENUE RECORDS TO PROVE WHAT INCOME THE FARMER HAS DERIVED. BUT IT HAS TO BE HIGHLIGHTED THAT RUBBER PRODU CTION AND SALE OF TIMBER IS A HIGHLY PROFITABLE VENTURE AND BASED ON THE PROFITABILITY OF RUBBER AND TIMBER SALES THE FIRM HAD EARNED ENOUGH SO AS TO GIVE THE APPELLANT RS.19,50,000/ - ON THE. THE APPELLANT IS GIVING A CHART BY WHICH IT IS ESTIMATED THAT 51 0 TREES YIELD RUBBER WORTH RS.15,42,450/ - AND TIMBER OF RS.9,94,500/ - OUT OF WHICH THE FARMER HAS PAID THE APPELLANT RS.19,50,000/ - . HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LAID LOT OF EMPHASIS ON THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND NOT BEING PROVED, WE ARE BRINGI NG ON RECORD SALE AGREEMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE APPELLANT BECAME THE OWNER OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AND ALSO THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE OFFICER UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962. THESE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE OWNERSH IP OF THE LAND AS BEING VESTED WITH THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS COUNT HAS TO BE DELETED. 6. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 196 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ASKED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WHO FURNISHED THE SAME VIDE LETTER DATED 23.06.2015 AND STATED THAT THE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO . 4247 /DEL /201 6 GEORGE KUTTY 7 PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, NONE OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOW N IN RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WERE SATISFIED, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY NOT BE ADMITTED. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE COMMENTS OF THE AO HAD BEEN EXTRACTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, O N THE REMAND REPORT OF T HE AO, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED REJOINDER DATED 14.09.2015 WHICH HAS BEEN EXTRACTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER , FOR THE COST OF REPETITION, THE SAME ARE NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN 7 . THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS & REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND REPORT OF THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITION TO THE ARGUMENT/EVIDENCE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO SOUGHT TO RELY ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE OWNERSHIP OF HIS LAND HOLDING IN KERALA BY WAY OF ORIGINAL LA ND RECEIPTS, SALE DEED AND POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WAS ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED FROM HIS LAND HOL DING IN KERALA WHICH WAS GIVEN ON PATTA BUT M ERE HOLDING OF LAND DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS RECEIVED FROM LAND. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT NO EVIDENCE SHOWING ANY RECORD OF EXPENDITURE OR RECEIPT MAINTAINED BY THE ALLEGED FARMER FROM WHOM THE HUGE AMOUNT OF CASH WAS ALLEGEDLY SOURC ED WAS FURNISHED AND NO CONFIRMATION FROM THE FARMER THAT HE HAD PAID THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS AVAILABLE. HE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY ITA NO . 4247 /DEL /201 6 GEORGE KUTTY 8 OBSERVING IN PARAS 5.4 & 5.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED VERBATIM AS UNDER: 5.4. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE SUBMISSION DATED 12.02.2013 BEFORE THE AO, THE APPELLANT STATED THAT HE GIVES THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ON PATTA TO FARMERS ON ANNUAL BASIS AND WHENEVER HE VISITS THE VILLAGE, HE COLLECTS THE PRICE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS WHICH A NNUALLY COMES TO ABOUT RS.19 LACS. HOWEVER, AS PER THE COPY OF AGREEMENT DRAWN ON 25.08.2004 BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE FARMER, THE AGRICULTURAL LAND, HAVING TREES FOR SLAUGHTER AS WELL AS FOR TIMBER IS GIVEN TO THE FARMER FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.19.50 LACS ON PATTA. THIS AMOUNT WAS TO BE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE SEPTEMBER, 2008. THERE IS, THEREFORE, COMPLETE INCONSISTENCY IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO WHEREIN THE ALLEGED PRICE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AS PER THE APPELLANT'S OWN SUBMISSION, A NNUALLY IS STATED TO BE RS.19 LACS. FURTHER, THE LD. AR HAS SOUGHT TO RELY ON A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RUBBER B OARD WHICH ONLY RECORDS THE SURVEY DETAILS OF HOLDING OF RUBBER AREA OF THE APPELLANT'S LAND SHOWING YEAR OF ORIGINAL PLANTING IN 1987 AND YEA R OF RE - PLANTING IN 2008. AS ALREADY STATED THE SO CALLED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND FARMER IS DATED AUGUST, 2004. THERE IS THEREFORE, NO CORRELATION AT ALL BETWEEN THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE RELIED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS WERE ACTUALLY BEING CARRIED OUT ON THE LAND OWNED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS VERY PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT H AS NEVER DISCLOSED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURNS FILED EITHER FOR THIS YEAR OR EARLIER YEARS UPTO A. Y. 2006 - 07. THE CASH AMOUNT IS SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED BY WAY OF A CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE F.Y. 2009 - 10 WHE REIN OPENING BALANCE OF RS. 21, 48,000 / - IS DISCLOSED. NO CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF EARLIER YEARS IS AVAILABLE. FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, IT IS ITA NO . 4247 /DEL /201 6 GEORGE KUTTY 9 NOTICED THAT CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES AND ALL SUCH DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN KEPT BELOW RS. 50,000 / - ON ALL OCCASIONS SO AS TO AVOID ANY SCRUTINY/DETECTION. NO EXPLANATION IS FURNISHED AS TO WHY CASH IS DEPOSITED ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING THE YEAR WHEN THE ALLEGED RECEIPTS OF RS. 19,50,000 / - WAS TO BE RECEIVED BEFORE SEPTEMBER, 2008 IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APP ELLANT AND FARMER. 5.5. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AND COGENT EVIDENCE TO S UPPORT HIS CONTENTION AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN HER FINDING THAT THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WAS UNEXPLAINED. THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,42,500 / - MADE BY THE AO IS THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL I S RULED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS GIV EN ON LEASE BASIS I.E. PATTA TO THE FARMER WHO PAID RS.19,50 ,000/ - TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS UTILIZED FOR DEPOSITING IN CASH IN THE BANK. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM AND EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOU NT. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 9. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ITA NO . 4247 /DEL /201 6 GEORGE KUTTY 10 DISCLOSE THE AGRICULTU RAL INCOME EITHER I N THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR IN ANY OF THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AND EVEN NO AGRICULTURAL TAX WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE FARMER WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT I N DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING LAND BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND EVEN IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE PRECEDING YEAR S UPTO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SH OWN. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT HAD SHOWN OPENING BALANCE OF RS.21,48,000/ - AND HAD CLAIMED THAT THE DEPOSIT ON VARIOUS DATES WAS FROM THAT CASH BALANCE BUT NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN AS TO WHY THE CASH WAS NOT DEPOSITED AT ONCE WHEN IT WAS AVAI LABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE , RATHER THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED ON VARIOUS DATES AND ALSO DEPOSIT HAD BEEN KEPT BELOW RS.50,000/ - . THE SAID EXPLANATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE PLAUS IBLE. FURTHERMORE, NO CONFIRMATION FROM THE FARMER THAT HE HAD PAID THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS FURNISHED TO THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AND COG ENT EVIDENCE ITA NO . 4247 /DEL /201 6 GEORGE KUTTY 11 FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO . WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A). 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . (O RDE R P RONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 /08 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - (BHAVNESH SAINI ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED : 31 /0 8 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR