Shri Dineshbhai Chhanabhai Kacchadiya (Patel), JAMNAGAR V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), JAMNAGAR

ITA 520/RJT/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0240 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MJ RANPURA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 201; 147; 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV , HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 518 / RJT /20 1 2 / ASSTT.YEAR : 2006 - 2007 RAMESH CHANABHAI KACHHADIA (PATEL) PROP: KACHHADIA METAL INDUSTRIES SHED NO.A - 35, GIDC, STU , JAMNAGAR. VS ITO, WARD - 1(3) JAMNAGAR. ITA.NO. 519 / RJT /201 2 / ASSTT.YEAR : 2007 - 2008 DINESH CHANABHAI KACHHADIA (PATEL) STREET NO.3, SHANTINAGAR NEAR JANTA FATAK , JAMNAGAR. VS ITO, WARD - 1(3) JAMNAGAR. ITA.NO. 520 / RJT /201 2 / ASSTT.YEAR : 2007 - 2008 CHANABHAI MAVJIBHAI KACHHADIA (PATEL) STREET NO.3, SHANTINAGAR NEAR JANTA FATAK , JAMNAGAR. VS ITO, WARD - 1(3) JAMNAGAR. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.J. RANPURA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR DAS, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 / 0 9 / 201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 / 0 9 /201 9 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE THREE APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT( A ), JAMNAGAR OF EVEN DATED 16.7.2012 . SINCE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ITA NO. 518, 519 AND 520 /RJT/201 2 2 THESE APPEALS IS MORE OR LESS SIMILAR, FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF ADJUDICATION, WE DISPOSE OF ALL O F THEM BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.518/RJT/2012. 3. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.81,55,000/ - WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.12.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,75,933/ - . THE ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS RUNNING A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF KACHHADIYA METAL INDUSTRIES , JAMNAGAR WHERE HE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING BRASS PARTS AND COMPONENTS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SE CTION 143(3) ON 22.12.2008 WHEREIN AN ADDITION OF RS.81.55 LAKHS WAS MADE BY THE AO WITH HELP OF SECTI O N 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ADDITION, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 24.3.2009 AL LOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY AND DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 8 ,45,000/ - . THE BALANCE I.E. RS.43.10 LAKHS WAS CONFIRMED. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASI DE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMITTED THE ISSUE FOR FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. I N THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD.AO AGAIN MADE ADDITION, AND APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 . IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE R ECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK LOAN OF RS.81.55 LAKHS FROM HIS MATERNAL GRANDFATHER VIZ. LATE SHRI KANJIBHAI BECHARBHAI B H ANDERI ( NAANA ) . THE ASSESSEE HAS BRO U GHT ON RECORD THE FOLLOWING FACTS RELATING TO THIS L O A N : ITA NO. 518, 519 AND 520 /RJT/201 2 3 (A) LATE SHRI KANJIBHAI (THE LENDER) WAS HOLDING 325 VIGHAS I.E. 130 ACRES OF AGRICULTURE LAND AND WAS WELL ESTABLISHED AGRICULTURIST. (B) THE LENDER HAS GIVEN LOAN OF RS.81 ,55,000/ - THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL TO THE APPELLANT. (C) THE LENDER HAS GIVEN POWER OF ATTORN EY VIDE LETTER 29.06.2000 TO THE APPELLANT TO OPERATE HIS BANK ACCOUNT. (D) ALL THE TRANSACTION IN BANK ACCOUNT OF LENDER AFTER HIS DEATH WERE DONE AS PER INSTRUCTIONS AND WITH THE CONSENT OF SHRI JAMANBHAI. (E) THE APPELLANT HAS REPAID THE LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.12,55,000/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND RS.25,90,000/ - DURING THE F.Y. 2006 - 07 THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. (F) THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER REPAID THE LOAN AMOUNTING TO RS.26,84,000/ - DURING THE F.Y. 2008 - 09 THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. (G) THE BALANCE OF RS.25,00,000 WAS NOT REPAYABLE TO THE LENDER IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION IN WILL OF THE LENDER AS PART OF DISTRIBUTION OF AMOUNT. 6 . THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH REGARD TO CREDIT - WORTHINESS OF SHRI KANJIBHAI AND MADE ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE ABOVE FACTS AND TOOK US THROUGH PAGE NO.29 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN HE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE D E TAILS SHOWING THE REPAYMENT OF LOA NS . HE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE LAND REVENUE RECORD EXHIBITING OWNERSHIP OF 130 ACRES OF LAND BY SHRI KANJIBHAI. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE WHICH CAN SUBSTANTIATE THE G ENERATION OF INCOME, OUT OF WHICH ITA NO. 518, 519 AND 520 /RJT/201 2 4 SUCH LOAN CAN BE GIVEN. HE T OOK US THROUGH THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) RECORDED IN PARA 7.3 AND 7.4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 7 . WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CONTEMPLATES THAT WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF, O R THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE AO SATISFACTORY, THEN THE SUM SO CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS MAY BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. 8 . A PERUSAL O F THE RECORD WOULD INDICATE THAT SHRI KANJIBHAI WAS NAANA OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS IDENTITY IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROV ED THE IDENTITY. THE LOAN WAS TAKEN THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. HENCE, THE GENUI NENESS OF THE TRANSACTI O N WAS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. ONLY DISPUTE IS WHETHER SHRI KANJIBH A I W AS HAVING SOURCE OF INCOME FOR ADVANCING OF SUCH LOAN OR NOT. IN ORDER TO PROVE THIS FACTOR, THE ASSESSEE HAS P R O D U C E D DETAILS OF LAND HOLDING, CROP CULTIVATION THEREON ETC. THE R EVENUE A UTHORITIES HAVE DISBELIEVED EARNING OF INCOME AT THE END OF SAID SHRI KANJIB HAI ON THE G R OUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED, SALES BILLS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE ETC. TO OUR MIND IT IS SUCH FACTOR WHICH WILL NEVER BE AVAILABLE WITH THE AGRICULTURIST . THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT SHRI KANJIBHAI IN THE FIRST R OUND CONFIRMED THE ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE, AND HE WAS HAVING 130 ACRES OF LAND. HE IS MAN OF ME A NS. HENCE, HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS CANNOT BE DOUBTED SIMPLY FOR THE REASON THAT AGRICULTURE PRODUCE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIATED. THIS CAN BE INQUIRED INTO HIS CASE. HOW THE ASSESSEE SHOULD PRODUCE SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE, PURCHASE BILL OF FERTILIZERS ETC. THESE FACTORS ARE NOT RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES WHILE EXAMINING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM T HE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO. 518, 519 AND 520 /RJT/201 2 5 DEMONSTRATED HOW HE HAS REPAID THE LOANS , AND HOW BAL A NCE RS.25 LAKHS WAS ADJUSTED ON ACCOUNT OF WILL OF NAANA . THUS, PRIMA FACIE THE ASSESSEE HAS DE M ONSTRATED THE SOU R CE OF RS.81,55,000/ - AND IT SHOULD NO T HAVE BEEN ADDED ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSI O N, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.81,55,000/ - . 9 . NOW WE TAKE UP ITA 519/AHD/2012. 10 . GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT T HE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.32,21,000/ - WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO WITH AID OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 11 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO GOT INFORMATION FROM AIR WING EXHIBITING THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSI TED RS.32,21,000/ - IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOU R CE OF SUCH DEPOSITS. IN RESPONSE TO QUERY, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS AN AGRICULTURIST. THE AMOUNT WAS DEPO SITED OUT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED DETAILS OF LAND HOLDING. HOWEVER, THE LD.AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED SUCH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE BANK, AND MADE ADDITION OF R S.32,21,000/ - . DISSATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HE PLEADED THAT THE LD.AO ERRED IN REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.32,21,000/ - . THE LD. C I T ( A ) REJECTED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 12 . BEFORE US, IN GROUND NO.1 AND 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW. ITA NO. 518, 519 AND 520 /RJT/201 2 6 13 . WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME. A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.32,21,000/ - WAS FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. INFORMATION TO THIS EFFECT CAME TO THE POSSESSION OF THE AO WHICH HAS HARBOURED A BELIEF THAT INCOME TO THIS EXTENT HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. THERE IS NO EXPLANATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO HOW REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING BEFORE THE AO THAT DEPOSI TS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS OUT OF EXPLAINED SOURCES, AND THERE F ORE IT IN ITSELF D I D N O T BECOME AN ESCAPED INCOME. I N OTHER WORDS, IF THE ASSESSEE COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK WAS SALE PROCEEDS OF SOME CAPITAL AS S ETS, HENCE, IT IS NOT AN ESCAPED INCOME, BUT NO SUCH STAND WAS TAKEN, RATHER A SIMPLE ARGUMENT WAS RAISED THAT IT IS OUT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME. TO OUR MIND, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY HARBO URED A BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS E SCAPED AND HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. 14 . AS FAR AS ADDITION ON MERIT IS CONCERNED , SECTION 68 CONTEMPLATES THAT WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF, OR THE EXPLANAT ION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE AO SATISFACTORY, THEN THE SUM SO CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS MAY BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. 15 . IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THE SOU R CE OF SUCH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SHOW AS TO HOW HE HAS EARNED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME. A PERUSAL OF THE D E TAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD INDICATE THAT HE WAS ONLY POSSESSING 10 BIGHAS OF LAND. IT IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE TO EARN AN INCOME OF RS.32.21 LAKHS OUT OF SUCH SMALL LAND HOLDING. APART FROM THIS EXPLANATION, THERE IS NO EXPLANATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ITA NO. 518, 519 AND 520 /RJT/201 2 7 LAND HOLDING AND AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST, WE ESTIMATE THAT AT THE MOST RS.15,00,000/ - (RUPEE S FIFTY LAKHS) COULD BE ALLEGED AS EARNED OUT OF AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES IN THE LAND HOLDING IN THIS YEAR AS WELL AS IN EARLIER YEARS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ACCUMULATED BY THE ASSESSEE. ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT IS DELETED AND THE REST IS CONFIRMED. THIS APP EAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16 . ITA NO.520/AHD/2012. 1 7 . GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO THE GROUND RAISED IN ITA NO.519/RJT/2012, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.34,55 ,000/ - BEING DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED . 1 8 . SIMILARLY, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO AGITATED OVER REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS REFLECTED IN GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL. 12. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO GOT INFORMATION FROM THE AIR WING AN AMOUNT OF RS.34,55,000/ - HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. TO THE QUERY OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS AN AGRICULTURIST AND EARNING AGRICULTURE INCOME, WHICH WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXED. HE FILED DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL AND IN FORM NO.7/12. ON VERIFICATION, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNING ONLY SMALL SIZE OF AGRICULTURE LAND; THERE WAS NO DETAILS OF C ROP PRODUCTION, AND OTHER RELATED EXPENSES ETC. THEREFORE, THE AO DISBELIEVED SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT OF RS.34,55,00/ - AND REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 AS THE SAID DEPOSIT AMOUNT WAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THERE IS NO EXPLANATION AT THE END OF TH E ASSESSEE AS TO HOW REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW , BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING BEFORE THE AO . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME. THERE IS NO ITA NO. 518, 519 AND 520 /RJT/201 2 8 INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE WITH THE AO ABOUT SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK EXCEPT INFOR MATION RECEIVED FROM THE AIR WING. THEREFORE, T O OUR MIND, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY HARBOURED A BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED AND HAS RIGHTLY REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. 13 . COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE, ON A QUERY BY THE AO AS TO THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 34,55,000/ - IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE BANK, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS POSSESSING 70 BIGHAS OF LAND AND THE DEPOSIT WAS MADE OUT CASH SALES OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE CULTIVATED ON THE SAID LAND. HE HAS ALSO PRODUCED REVENUE RECORDS TO THIS EFFECT. THE AO HAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.34,55,000/ - . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE , WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO THOUGH CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING LAND APPROX. 70 BIGHAS IN TWO VILLAGES VIZ. SIDDHSAR AND JIMARANA, BUT THE AO HAS NOTICED ONLY THE LAND SITUATED IN SIDDHSAR FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. DISSATISFIED WITH ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE NOW BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 1 4 . BEFORE US, THE LD.COUSNEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE ALSO TOOK US THROUGH PAGE NO.30 TO 100 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH CONTAINED COPIES OF FORM NO.7/12 SHOWING CULTIVATION OF CROP I.E. GROUNDNUT , S ALES AND PURCHASE BILLS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCES ETC. TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MAN OF MEANS SO AS TO MAKE SUCH DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS. THE LD.DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 1 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVA L SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO PROVEN SOURCE OF INCOME. IN ORDER TO PROVE THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED COPIES OF DOCUMENTS SHOWIN G OWNERSHIP OF THE ITA NO. 518, 519 AND 520 /RJT/201 2 9 LAND OF AROUND 70 BIGHAS , DETAILS OF CROP CULTIVATION THEREON ETC. BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE DISBELIEVED EARNING OF INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED, SALES BILLS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE ETC. TO OUR MIND , IT IS A SUCH FACTOR WHICH WILL NEVER BE AVAILABLE WITH THE AGRICULTURIST . THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING FAIRLY LARGE CHUNK OF AGRICULTURE LAND . IT HAS BEEN DOUBTED BY AO ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS HOLDING ONLY SMALL SIZE OF AGRICULTURE LAND, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONTRADICTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) HIMSELF BY OBSERVING THAT THE AO HAS ONLY CONSIDERED A SMALL AREA OF THE AGRICULTURE LAND POSSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE . WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE WHOLE F ACTS, THE AO CANNOT REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED HIS CLAIM BASED ON AGRICULTURAL RECORD AND OTHER DETAILS , WHICH HAS NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE . IT IS NOT EXPECTED FROM AN AGRICULTUR IST T O MAINTAIN CONVENTIONAL SYSTEM OF BOOK KEEPING, PARTICULARLY IN THE REMOTE AREAS. WHATEVER DETAILS AND COPIES OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MEANS TO DEPOSIT THE ALLEGED SUM OF RS.34,55,000/ - . THIS BEING SO, WE DO NOT FIND A NY JUSTIFICATION IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 1 6 . IN THE RESULT, ITA NO.518 AND 520/RJT/2012 ARE ALLOWED, AND ITA NO.519/RJT/2012 IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 8 T H SEPTEMBER, 201 9 AT RAJKOT . S D / - SD / - (WASEEM AHMED ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER RAJKOT ; DATED 1 8 / 0 9 /201 9