DCIT, Kanpur V. Amar Nath Gupta, Kanpur

ITA 600/LKW/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 60023714 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 69; 6

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.600/LKW/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005 - 06 DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, KANPUR. VS. SHRI AMAR NATH GUPTA, 123/1 - F, KALPI ROAD, KANPUR. PAN:AAUPG4232E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CIT, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, FCA SHRI SUDHINDRA JAIN, FCA DATE OF HEARING 16/06/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 8 /07/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) - I, KANPUR DATED 07/07/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 2006. 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF LAW AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS SUBSTITUTING HIS OWN SATISFACTION IN PLACE OF ASSESSING OFFICERS SATISFACTION THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AS PROVIDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) HA S NOT POINTED OUT ANY FACT WHICH COULD INDICATE THAT ASSESSING OFFICERS SATISFACTION WAS BASED ON ANY WRONG APPRECIATION OF FACTS. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTT. PAID ON UNEXPLAINED LOAN WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT S THAT INTEREST WAS PAID ON LOAN WHICH WERE CONSIDERED UNEXPLAINED U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE CIT(A) COULD NOT HAVE SUBSTITUTED HIS OWN SATISFACTION IN PLACE OF ASSESSING OFFICERS SATISFACTION 2 WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY ERROR IN ASSESSING OFFICERS CON CLUSION. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 'A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED ON 01.12.2004 AT THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI AMAR NATH GUPTA GROUP OF CASES I. E. SRI AMAR NATH GUPTA , M/S OIL EMPORIUM, M/S YOG BUILDERS AND M / S YOG INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., 123/ 1 F, KALPI ROAD. KANPUR. THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI A M A R NATH GUPTA SITUATED AT 203 , RATAN APARTMENT , SWAROOP N AGAR, KANPUR WAS ALSO SEARCHED . C ONSEQUENT UPON SEARCH, THE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE D Y. /ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR VIDE ORDER NO. 01 - DAT ED 25 . 4.2005 U/S 127(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA Z - 1 , KANPUR. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF TOTAL INCOME U/S 153 - A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,95,190/ - ON 31.03.2006. IN VIEW OF THE C OMPLEXITY OF ACCOUNTS, SPECIAL AUDIT WAS RECOMMENDED. CIT (CENTRAL), KANPUR. THE ASSESSEE GOT HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS AUDITED FROM SPECIAL AUDITOR M/S CHAUDHARY PANDIA & COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPIES OF SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT U/S 142(2A) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE LETTER DATED 25.6.2007'. 3. WHILE MAKING THE TOTAL ADDITION FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.70,42,757/ - AS AGAINST NET PROFIT AS PER SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT OF RS.1,75,768/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS U/S 6 8 FOR VARIOUS LOANS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS SUCH AS JASR AJ FINANCE, SMT. KAVITA AGARWAL , SHRI BINOD KUMAR PODDAR, SHRI AVINASH KHANDELWAL, M/S RAGHAV AGARWAL BENIFICIARY TRUST, PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL ETC. ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THESE CASH CREDITS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DIS ALLOWED CONSEQUENTIAL INTEREST PAYMENTS ON THESE CASH CREDITS. BEING 3 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THESE ADDITIONS AND NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE LOAN CREDITORS AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE RESTORED. 5. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT: ( I ) AVINASH KHANDELWAL RS.5,00,000/ - ( II ) JASRAJ FINANCE RS.5,50,301/ - ( III ) SMT. KAVITA AGARWAL RS.3,85,211/ - ( IV ) SHRI BINOD KR. PODDAR RS.1,09,962/ - ( V ) SHRI PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL RS.3,30,181/ - ( VI ) RAGHAV AGARWAL BENEFICIARY TRUST RS.2,28,240/ - ( VII ) M/S YOG BUILDERS RS.3,00,000/ - ( VIII ) SMT. SNEH LATA GUPTA RS. 15,528/ - ( IX ) NISHI AGARWAL RS. 855/ - ( X ) AMAR NATH GUPTA (HUF) RS. 92,696/ - ----------------- TOTAL RS .25,12,974/ - 7. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY CIT(A) AS PER PARA 22 OF HIS ORDER APPEARING ON PAGE NO. 25 AND FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 22. THE AO HAS FORWARDED THE REPORT IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ENTRIES FOR WHICH ADDITION OF RS.24,03,895/ - WAS MADE. THE REPORT OF THE AO ON THESE ISSUES IS SELF EXPLANATORY. THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY AO BY RELYING ON 4 EARLIER YEAR'S OBSERVATIONS AND CO NCLUDING THAT THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS/TRANSACTING PARTIES IS NOT PROVED. THE RECORDS OF THE EARLIER YEARS SHOWS THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE AO IN RESPECT OF THESE T RANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, SAME HAS BEEN FILED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND IT HAS ALSO BEEN COMMENTED UPON BY AO, AS NOTED ABOVE. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNTS AND RE SPECTIVE BANK STATEMENT IS PRIMA - FACIE IN ORDER. THE AO HAS ALSO VERIFIED THE CONFIRMATORY LETTERS AND BANK ACCOUNTS FROM THE TRANSACTING PARTIES. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE SAID PARTIES ARE ASSESSED TO TAX. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION AND DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF CREDITS OF RS.24,03,895/ - THE SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED AS EXPLAINED WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 AND 69 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. THE EXPLANATIONS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY AO AND SAME IS VERIFIABLE BY HIM. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND AS PER EXPLANATIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT (NOTED ABOVE IN PARA 19/20 OF THIS ORDER), IT IS HELD THAT THE CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS.24,03,8 95/ - IS EXPLAINED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INCOME TAX AC T AS ALSO AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT. HENCE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.24,03,895/ - . THE AO FAILED TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUND AND GIVEN ADVANCES TO M/S YOG INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. AND M/S OIL EMPORIUM (PROPRI ETORSHIP CONCERN), THESE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WHEREAS THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED IN HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN. THERE IS NO NEXUS TO PROVE BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE ADVANCES GIVEN, THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,09,3 52/ - . THE DEPOSIT OF RS.5 LACS RECEIVED FROM SHRI AVINASH KHANDELWAL IS ACCEPTED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, INTEREST OF RS.40,192/ - PAID TO HIM IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. THUS, GR OUNDS NO. (I )( B), ( I)(C), (I)(D), (I)(E), (I)(F) & (I)(K) OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 8. FROM THE ABOVE PARA FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ADDITION S WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY RELYING ON EARLIER YEAR'S OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLU SIONS THAT THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS/TRANSACTING PARTIES IS NOT 5 PROVED. THEREAFTER , HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE RECORDS OF THE EA RLIER YEARS SHOW THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE AO IN RESPECT OF THESE TRANSACTIONS BUT THE SAME WERE FILED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND IT HAS BEEN COMMENTED UPON BY ASSESSING O FFICER. HE HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH CONFIRMED COPY OF ACCOUNTS AND RESPECTIVE BANK STATEMENT IS PRIMA - FACIE IN ORDER. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO VERIFIED THE CONF IRMATORY LETTERS AND BANK ACCOUNTS FROM THE TRANSACTING PARTIES. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE SAID PARTIES ARE ASSESSED TO TAX. ON THE BASIS OF TH ESE FINDING S , HE HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE U/S 68 OR 69 OF TH E ACT. THIS DECISION IS ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REGARDING THE ALLEGED ADVANCE GIVEN TO M/S YOG INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. AND M/S OIL EMPORIUM (PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN), IT IS NOTED BY THE CIT (A) THAT THESE ADVANCES WERE GIVE N BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WHEREAS THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED IN HIS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN. HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE ADVANCES GIVEN. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS OF CIT ( A) AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT ( A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 ARE REJECTED. 9. GROUND NO. 3 IS AS UNDER: 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY FOUND AMOUNTING TO RS.24,44,221/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED JEWELLERY WERE UNEXPLAINED. 6 10. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT ( A). 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) AS PER PARA 29 TO 32 OF HIS ORDER AS APPEARING ON PAGE NO. 27 OF HIS ORDER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE , THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 29. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTESTED THE ADDITION OF RS.19,06,192 / - AND RS.5,38,031/ - AS PER GROUND NO. ( I)(M) & (I )(N) OF APPEAL. IN THIS RESPECT, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED DETAILED EXPLANATION/WORKING AS NOTED IN PARA - 19(M) OF THIS ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT HE HAS RE CEIVED JEWELLERY THROUGH WILL OF LATE MAMA SHRI SHYAM LAL GARG. 30. THE NOTARIZED COPY OF WILL AND A FEW MARRIAGE PHOTOGRAPHS HAS ALSO BEEN FILED AND PLACED ON RECORD. THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY AO IN REMAND REPORT, AND ALSO ARE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON THIS ISSUE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH CHAND V /S DY. CIT 95 TTJ 409 (CHD.) WHERE IT WAS HE LD THAT 'ADHOC ADDITION MADE BY AO COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED AS THE SAME WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS . THE AO HAS NOT POINTED O U T THAT ANY JEWELLERY FOUND DURING T H E SEARCH WAS UNEXPLAINED & THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS WITHOUT BASIS, HENCE THIS DECISION IS APPLICABLE. NO COMMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FROM AO ON THIS ISSUE AS CONTESTED AND EXPLAINED BY APPELLANT. 31. HENCE, IN VIEW OF EXPLANATIONS AND DOCUMENTS IN THIS BEHALF ON RECORD, THE ENTIRE JEWELLERY VALUING RS.19,06,192 / - OF THE APPELLANT IS ACCEPTED, (WEIGHING 1908.000 GMS. AMOUNTING TO RS.19,06,192 / - ) AS EXPLAINED. 32. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5,3 8,031/ - ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME WAS ADDED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT'S WIFE I.E. SMT. SNE H L AT A G U PTA . THE SAM E WILL BE CONSIDERED DURING 7 HER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.19,06,192 / - AND RS.5,38,031/ - . 12. FROM THE ABOVE PARA S FROM THE ORDER OF CIT ( A), WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.19,06,192/ - AND RS.5,38,031/ - HAVE BEEN DELETED BY CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF RECEIPT OF JEWELLERY AS PER WILL OF LATE MAMA OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI SHYAM LAL GARG. HE HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT T HE NOTARIZED COPY OF WILL AND A FEW MARRIAGE PHOTOGRAPHS HA VE ALSO BEEN FILED AND PLACED ON RECORD AND T HESE DOCUMENTS HAVE NOT BE EN CONTROVERTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN REM AND REPORT. THE SECOND ADDITION OF RS.5,38,031/ - WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT THIS ADDITION IS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND THE SAME WAS ADDED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE S MT. SNEH LATA GUPTA AN D THEREFORE, THE SAME WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. SNEH LATA GUPTA. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO, WE FIND THAT THIS WILL OF MAMA OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI SHYAM LAL GARG WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE SAME ON THE BASIS THAT THE NOTARIZED WILL WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND BY ALLEGING THAT THE DOCUMENT IS NOT RELIABLE DOCUMENT AS THE VERY READING OF THE WHOLE SMACKS OF ITS UNGENUINENE SS WITHOUT ANY BASIS FOR ALLEGING SO . FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT THE WILL WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SUSPICION ALONE WITHOUT GIVING ANY CONCRETE REASON AND IN THE REMAND REPORT ALSO , HE COULD NOT GIVE ANY ADVERSE FINDING REGARDIN G THE WILL AND CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO IN TERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 IS ALSO REJECTED. 13. GROUND NO. 4 IS AS UNDER: 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,54,383/ - RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED AGRICULTURAL 8 INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PROVED THE BONAFIDE OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATION NOR COMPUTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS PROVID ED IN PART IV OF FINANCE ACT, 2005. 14. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) AS PER PARA NO. 24 ON PAGE NO. 26 OF HIS ORDER AND FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE , THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 24. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTESTED ADDITION OF RS.1,54 ,383/ - RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED SIX YEARLY 'KHATAUNI' WHICH IS RECORD OF LAND HOLDING IN THE REVENUE RECORDS. THE COPY OF SUCH KHATAUNI FILED SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT OWNS LAND OF ABOUT 4.89 HECTARE AS SUBMIT TED VIDE LETTER DATED 12.6.2008 WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT 'OWNS A TRACTOR WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES'. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEP ARTMENT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS OF 'INTEKHAB KHASRA' WHICH IS RECORD OF CROP BEING PRODUCED ON A PARTICULAR LAND, HAS ALSO BEEN FILED WHICH SHOWS THAT WHEAT, GRAM, ETC. HAS BEEN CULTIVATED ON THE SAID LAND. THE DOCUMENTS OF EVIDENCE OF P RODUCTION OF THE CROP AND HOLDING OF THE LAND ARE ENOUGH TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CARRIED ON THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND RESULTANT AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED BY HIM. CONSIDERING THAT THE SALE PURCHASE OF PRODUCE IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECT OR IS MOSTLY HI CASH, THE OVER EMPHASIS ON EVIDENCE OF SALE RECEIPT OF CROP PRODUCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. I FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATION AND RESULTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME ARE SUFFICIENT AND ENO UGH TO PROVE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS IS ALSO SUPPORTED AND ACCEPTED BY EARLIER RECORDS OF INCOME - TAX. THEREFORE, AO IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY APPELLANT AND DELETE THE ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, GROUND NO. (I)(I) OF APP EAL IS ALLOWED. 9 16. FROM THE ABOVE PARA FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED SIX YEARLY 'KHATAUNI' REGARDING LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE AND FROM THE SAME , IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS LAND OF ABOUT 4.89 HECTARE . IT IS ALSO NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS A TRACTOR WHICH IS EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE ALSO . GROUND NO. 4 IS ALSO REJECTED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 8 /07/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR