Sh. Surjit Singh S/O Sh. Kehar Singh, Abohar V. The Income tax Officer, Abohar

ITA 545/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 54520914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAM BAHL
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.545(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-05 PAN :AUPPS7027Q SH. SURJIT SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, S/O SH. KEHAR SINGH, WARD 2(3), ABOHAR. ABOHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.PADAM BAHL, CA RESPONDENT BY:SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, DATE OF HEARING: 08/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:17/01/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 22.05.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 10.02.2011 IN THI S CASE IS UNJUST, ILLEGAL & VOID AB INITIO AS THERE WAS NO OMISSION O R FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), BATHINDA HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.9 ,02,215/- BY ITA NO.545(ASR)/2013 2 TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS NON-AGR ICULTURAL INCOME. 3. THAT BOTH THE LD. CIT(A) BATHINDA AND THE AO HAV E GROSSLY ERRED IN ASSESSING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE AT RS.7,00,000/- AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.9,02 ,215/-. 4. THAT BOTH THE LD. CIT(A) BATHINDA AND THE AO HA VE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED 20 ACRES & 7 KAN ALS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH INCLUDED 8 ACRES OF ORCHARD ALSO AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.7,00,000/- SHOWN BY HIM W AS NOT EXCESSIVE. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), BATHINDA HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN ACCEPTING INCOME TAX OFFI CER, BATALAS VERSION THAT ASSESSEE HAS FABRICATED EVIDE NCE AND HAD STOLEN LETTER PADS OF GURDASPURIAN DI HATTI WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THAT BOTH THE LD. CIT(A) BATHINDA AND THE AO HAV E GROSSLY ERRED IN RELYING UPON THE ONE SIDED STATEMENTS OF P ARTNER AND PARTNERS SON OF GURDASPURIAN DI HATTI, BATALA WITH OUT ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM. 7. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BATHINDA AND THE A. O. PERVERSE, ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUS TICE. 2. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1, THE BRIEF FACTS AS APPEA RING IN AOS ORDER, WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN THIS CASE, ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/ S 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 13.02.2006 DETERMIN ING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.40,760/- + AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.7,00,000/-. LATER ON, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE AS SESSEE DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.7,23,000/- INTO HIS SAVING BANK A/C NO.708815 222225 MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF PUNJAB, ABOHAR AS PER DETAI LS GIVEN BELOW: DATE OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT DEPOSITED. 05.12.2003 RS.2,43,000/- 09.02.2004 RS.2,50,000/- ITA NO.545(ASR)/2013 3 24.02.2004 RS.2,00,000/- 28.02.2004 RS. 30,000/- TOTAL: RS.7,23,000/- WHEN CONFRONTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ABOVE SAID CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS HAVING 20 ACRES AND 7 KANALS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN HIS OWN NAME, OUT OF WHICH ORCHARD IN 8 ACRES WAS BEING CULTIVATED AND THE AM OUNT OF RS.7,23,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ON VARIOUS DATES, OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF FRUIT FOR RS.9,02,215/- THROUGH THE FIR M M/S. GURDASPURIAN DI HATTI, FRUIT AND VEGETABLE COMMISSION AGENTS, BA TALA. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, COPIES OF LETTER PADS OF THE ABO VE SAID FIRM WERE ALSO PRODUCED. ACCORDINGLY, IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE SALE TRANSACTIONS OF FRUITS A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE ITO, BATALA, AS THE ABOVE SAID FIRM WAS BEING ASSESSED WITH HIM. VI DE HIS OFFICE LETTER NO.21`72 DATED 20.12.2006, AFTER MAKING CONCRETE EN QUIRIES AND RECORDING STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE A BOVE SAID FIRM THE ITO BATALA CONFIRMED THAT NO SUCH TRANSACTION OF SA LE WAS MADE BY THEM WITH SH. SURJIT SINGH S/O SH. KEHAR SINGH OF A BOHAR, NOR THEY ISSUED ANY LETTER PADS CONTAINING THE TRANSACTIONS ,, SO PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, IT WAS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE MANIPULATED THE FRIVOLOUS DOCUMENTS TO PR OVE THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF FRUITS WITH THE SAID FIRM, WHICH IN FACT WAS NOT EXECUTED. 2. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUE D TO THE ASSESSEE ON 10.02.2011 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS FOR DOING SO AND THE SAME WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 11.02 .2011. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. PADAM BAHL , CA AGITATED THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON TWO COUNT S. FIRSTLY, IN VIEW OF PROVISO TO SECTION 147, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05 BEING THE IMPUGNED YEAR ON 13.02.2006 AND REOPENING OF ASSES SMENT WAS DONE ON 10.02.2011 BY SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, WHICH IS IN CONTRAVENTION ITA NO.545(ASR)/2013 4 OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. SECONDLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. PADAM BAHL, CA AGITATED THE INITIATIO N OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SINCE THERE ARE TWO OPINIONS AND THE A O WAS HAVING ALL THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM WITH REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW IN THIS REGA RD AS UNDER: I) CIT VS. FORAMER FRANCE 264 ITR 566 (SC) II) GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LTD. VS. DCIT 319 ITR 282 (GUJ) 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUED THAT PROVI SO TO SECTION 147 IS NOT APPLICABLE AND SIMPLY CLAIMING AGRICULTURAL INC OME WHICH HAS BEEN ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE OF INCOME AND THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE L D. DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE AO IN THE FIRST ROUND AT PB-1, WHICH IS A VERY SMALL ORDER, WHICH CAN SPEAK THE THINGS BY ITSELF. 5. THE LD. DR WITH REGARD TO THE TWO OPINIONS ARGUE D THAT THERE ARE NO TWO OPINIONS AND WHEN IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND A FTER MAKING ENQUIRY THROUGH INCOME TAX OFFICER, BATALA AND AFTER DENIAL BY THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM OF SUCH PAYMENTS WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IN FACT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A GRICULTURAL INCOME, THE CASE WAS REOPENED AND REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE RIGHTLY INITIATED IN ITA NO.545(ASR)/2013 5 VIEW OF NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE DURING THE FIRST ROUND OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER DATED 13. 02.2006 AVAILABLE AT PB-1. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ARE CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. DR THAT EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 147 CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE PRODUCTION BEFORE THE AO OF ACCOUNTS BOOKS OR OTHER EVIDENCE FROM WHICH MATERIAL EVIDENC E COULD WITH DUE DILIGENCE HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FORE GOING PROVISO. MOREOVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT IN TH E FIRST ROUND DATED 13.02.2006 HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT MAKING SCRUTINY O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE NECESSARY ORDER OF THE A.O. WARD II(3), A BOHAR DATED 13.02.006 IS REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AS UNDER: ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 07.0 5.2004 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.40,670/- BESIDES AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS.7,00,000/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U /S 143(1) AT THE RETURNED VERSION. A NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEES CASE FELL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF COMPULSO RY SCRUTINY AS PER BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.10/2004 DATED 20.09.2004. IN RESPONSE TO STATUTORY NOTICES ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE ATTEN DED BY THE ASSESSEE SH. ASHOK BAJAJ, ADVOCATE FROM TIME TO TIM E. DETAILS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN FILED. THESE HAVE BEEN EXAMINED. AFTER DISCUSSION RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCE PTED. 6.1. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS E VIDENT THAT THE RETURNED INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS IF RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO SCRUTINY HAS BEEN ITA NO.545(ASR)/2013 6 DONE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EXCEPT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 13.02. 2006. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PROVISO TO SEC TION 147 OF THE ACT, AS AGITATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, CANNO T BE MADE APPLICABLE AND THE AO HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 147/148 OF THE ACT. 6.2. AS REGARDS TWO OPINIONS, AS AGITATED BY THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER IN THE FIRST ROUND U/S 143(3) DATED 13.02.2006 WAS IN A SUMMARY MANNER, AS REPRODUCED H EREINABOVE AND IT IS ONLY AFTER SUCH ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN MADE IN THE FIR ST ROUND, THE AO CAME TO NOTICE ABOUT SUCH DEPOSITS, WHICH WERE FOUND INGENU INE AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS TREATED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND A DDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENTS THAT THERE I S CHANGE OF OPINION, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND THE CASES RELIED UPON BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 7. AS REGARDS GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 7, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.7,23,000/- IN CASH IN BANK OF PUNJAB, ABOHAR ON DIFFERENT DATES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS DETAILED BEL OW: 05.12.2004 RS.2,43,000/- 09.02.2005 RS.2,50,000/- 24.02.2005 RS.2,00,000/- 28.02.2005 RS. 30,000/- TOTAL: RS.7,23,000/- ITA NO.545(ASR)/2013 7 WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID DEPOSITS , IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE OWNED 20 ACRES AND 7 KANALS OF AGR ICULTURAL LAND AND THAT THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF FRUI T FOR RS.9,02,15/- TO M/S. GURDASPURIAN DI HATTI, FRUIT & VEGETABLE COMMISSION AGENTS, BATALA. IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION, PHOTOSTAT COPIES OF LETT ER PADS ISSUED BY BATALA PARTY CONTAINING DETAILS OF SALE OF FRUIT WERE ALSO FURNISHED. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE VERACITY OF TRANSACTIONS NOTED ON THE LETTER-PADS, THE AO REFERRED THE MATTER TO ITO, BATALA FOR ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION. AFTER CONDUCTING ENQUIRIES, THE ITO, BATALA VIDE HIS LETT ER DATED 20.12.2006 INTIMATED THE AO THAT M/S. GURDASPURIAN DI HATTI, F RUIT & VEGETABLE COMMISSION AGENTS, BATALA HAVE DENIED HAVING PURCHA SED ANY FRUIT FROM THE ASSESSEE IN AS MUCH AS NO LETTER PADS CONTAINING TH E TRANSACTIONS WERE SUPPLIED BY THEM. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE FURNISHED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF AGRICUL TURAL LANDS BY HIM AND STATED THAT THE ORIGINAL LETTER PADS OF GURDASPURIA N DI HATTI, BATALA CONTAINING DETAILS OF FRUIT SOLD, WERE SUBMITTED BY HIM TO THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH CULMINATED ON 13.02. 006. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COPIES OF STATEMENTS DATED 2 0.03.2006 AND 23.12.2011 OF SH. JUGAL KISHORE, PARTNER OF M/S. GU RDASPURIAN DI HATTI, BATALA RECORDED BY THE ITO, BATALA WERE ALSO SUPP LIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ITA NO.545(ASR)/2013 8 ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN REPLY ON 22.12.2011 WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3 ), THE INCOME RETURNED WAS ACCEPTED AND LATE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WAS ALSO BAD. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANAT ION TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT FIRSTLY, NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS, SECOND THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE INN THE BANK ONLY IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2004 AN D IT WAS DONE TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE AS HIS INCOME FROM PENSION WAS BELOW TH E TAXABLE LIMIT. THE AO ALSO MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR PAN AT THE AGE OF 75 YEARS WHEN HE HAD RETIRED 16 Y EARS PRIOR TO THAT. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ANCESTRAL AND THERE WERE SEVERAL CO-OWNERS OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AND HE DID NOT SHOW AGRICULTURAL INCO ME IN HIS INDIVIDUAL STATUS DURING SERVICE PERIOD. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAN TED TO GIVE THE COLOUR OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS N OT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE AO MADE AN ADDITIO N OF RS.9,02,215/- TREATING THE SAME AS UN-EXPLAINED DEPOSITS WHICH TH E ASSESSEE HAD ALLEGED TO BE SALE PROCEEDS OF FRUIT TO M/S. GURDASPURIAN DI H ATTI, BATALA. 7.1. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.545(ASR)/2013 9 7.2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. PADAM BA HL, CA ARGUED THAT THE BILLS BELONGED TO M/S. GURDASPURIAN DI HATTI, BATAL A AND NOW DENIAL BY SAID PARTY IS TO AVOID INVESTIGATION BY THE INCOME TAX A UTHORITIES FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. ACTUALLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE FRUIT TO THE SAID PARTY AND HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT IN CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.7 LACS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CASH DEPOSIT IS OF RS 7 LACS AND NOT RS .9,02,215/- AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION AT THE MOST SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR RS.7, 23,000/- ONLY. IN FACT, HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PB 8 TO 10, WHERE THE ASS ESSEE HAD DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-0 6, 2006-07 & 2007-08 WHICH IS RANGING FROM RS.1,00,000/- TO RS.12,50,000 /- AND WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ESPECIALLY FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER ARGUED EVEN IF TH E PARTY HAS DENIED TO HAVING MADE PURCHASES FROM THE ASSESSEE, ALTERNATIV ELY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL GOODS OUTSIDE IN THE OPE N MARKET AND DUE CREDIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOULD BE GIVEN ON THE BASIS OF INCOME DECLARED IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR AS WELL AS IN THE PAST YEAR, SINCE C OPIES OF JAMABANDI AND GIRDWARI ARE ON RECORD BEFORE THE AO. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THOUGH, THERE ARE COPIES OF JAMABANDI AND GIRDAWAR I ARE ON RECORD BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH WHETHER HE IS THE EXCLUSIVE OWNER OF ITA NO.545(ASR)/2013 10 THE AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 20 ACRE 7 KANAL. NO COPY OF ASSESSMENT RECORD CLAIMING AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE PRECEDING YEAR HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AGRICULTURAL GOODS TO M/S. GURDASPURIAN DI HATTI, BATALA IS FOUN D TO BE INGENUINE AND INCORRECT FOR THE REASONS THAT THE SAID FIRM THROU GH HIS PARTNERS DENIED OF HAVING PURCHASED SUCH GOODS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND NO COGENT EXPLANATION TO THIS DENIAL H AS BEEN PLACED BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OR EVEN BEFORE US. THE ARG UMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT FRUITS HAVE BEEN SOLD OUTSIDE IN THE OPEN MARKET, NO SUCH EVIDENCE OR COGENT EXPLANATION HAS BEEN BROUG HT ON RECORD WHETHER THE GOODS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN SOLD TO ANY PERSON IN THE OPEN MARKET. THE CLAIM IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE REVENUE OF THE SAME CANNOT BE A EVIDENCE OR COGENT EXPLANATION TO ALLOW THE CLAIM IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR SINCE EACH YEAR IS AN IN DEPENDENT YEAR AND IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ES TABLISH THE SAME FRUIT SOLD TO M/S. GURDASPURIAN DI HATTI OR OUTSIDE AND I N VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS HEREINABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS UPHELD. 9. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CASH H AS BEEN DEPOSITED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.7,23,000/- AND ONLY ADDITION OF RS .7,23,000/- CAN BE MADE BEING UNEXPLAINED, WE ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ITA NO.545(ASR)/2013 11 ASSESSEE AND MODIFY THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND DIRECT THE AO TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,23,000/- IN PLACE O F RS.9,02,215/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW ARE MODIFIED AND GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 7 OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITA NO.545(ASR)/2013 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17TH JANUARY, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH.SURJIT SINGH, ABOHAR. 2. THE ITO WARD 2(3), ABOHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR