Anil Kumar, Uttar Pradesh V. ITO, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 6694/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6640 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PIYUSH KR KAMAL ADVS
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SM C - II , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 6694/DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 1 0 ANIL KUMAR, VILL - CHARORA, ANOOP SHAHAR, BULAND SHAH AR, UP. VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BULAND SHAHAR, UP. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. BAAPK4175P ASSESSEE BY : SH. GAUTAM JAIN & PIYUSH KR. KAMAL, ADVS. REVENUE BY : SH. AMRIT LAL , SR. DR DATE OF HE ARING : 24 .08 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 . 11 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2014 OF LD. CIT(A) , MEERUT . 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT THE I'D CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GOVERNING THE IMPUGNED MATTER AND HAS INSTEAD GONE ON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS 70,000/ - MADE BY THE AO, MERELY ON TAKING AN UNSUPPORTED OVERVIEW OF THE ENTIRE MATTER. THE SAID ADDITION DESERVES TO B E DELETED. 2. THAT THE I'D CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GOVERNING THE IMP UGNED MATTER AND HAS INSTEAD GONE ON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS 4,98,000/ - MADE BY THE AO, MERELY ON TAKING AN ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 2 UNSUPPORTED OVERVIEW OF THE ENTIRE MATTER. THE SAID ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. THAT THE L D CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GOVERNING THE IMPUGNED MATTER AND HAS INSTEAD GONE ON TO SUST AIN THE ADDITION OF RS 1,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO, MERELY ON TAKING AN UNSUPPORTED OVERVIEW OF THE ENTIRE MATTER. THE SAID ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE L D CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GOVERNING THE IMPUGNED MATTER AND HAS INSTEAD GONE ON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS 40,000/ - MADE BY THE AO, MERELY ON TAKING AN UNSUPPORTED OVERVIEW OF THE ENTIRE MATTER. THE SAID ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 5. THAT THE L D CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GOVERNING THE IMPUGNED MATTER AND HAS INSTEAD GONE ON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS 1,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO, MERELY ON TAKING AN UNSUPPORTED OVERVIEW OF THE ENTIRE MATTER. THE SAID ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 6. THAT THE ID CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GOVERNING THE IMPUG NED MATTER AND HAS INSTEAD GONE ON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS 2,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO, MERELY ON TAKING AN UNSUPPORTED OVERVIEW OF THE ENTIRE MATTER. THE SAID ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 7. THAT THE I D CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GOVERNING THE IMPUGNED MATTER AND HAS INSTEAD GONE ON TO SUST AIN THE ADDITION OF RS 4,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO, MERELY ON TAKING AN ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 3 UNSUPPORTED OVERVIEW OF THE ENTIRE MATTER. THE SAID ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3 . FROM THE ABOVE GR OUNDS, IT IS GATHERED THAT THE G RIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS.14,08,000/ - (RS. 70,000/ - , RS.4,98,000/ - , 1,00,000/ - , RS.40,000/ - , RS.1,00,000/ - AND RS.4,00,000/ - ) MADE BY THE AO. 4 . FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29 .03.2010 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,30,920 / - . LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. T HE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE EXACT SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITE D IN SB A/C 04012010043650 MAINTAINED WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COM MERCE , CHARORA BRANCH, BULANDS HAHAR. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO WAS THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK WERE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE I.E. SUGARCANE AND WHEAT AND AMOUNTS RE - DEPOSITED FROM THE WITHDRAWAL S MADE ON EARLIER DATES . THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE W AS AGAINST THE EACH DEPOSITS WERE AS UNDER: DATE OF DEPOSIT MODE OF DEPOSITS AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN RUPEES. EXPLANATION/ ELUCIDATION OF AS SESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS. 13.05.2008 CASH 70,000/ - RECEIPTS FROM SALE OF SUGAR CANE 02.06.2008 CASH 30.000/ - RE - DEPOSIT WITHDRAWALS MADE ON 24.05.2008 09.06.2008 CASH 4,98,000/ - RECEIPT FROM SALE OF SUGAR CANE 23.06.2008 CASH 1,00,000/ - RECEIPT FROM SALE OF WHEAT ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 4 19.08.2008 CASH 2,00,000/ - RE DEPOSIT WITHDRAWAL MADE ON 28.07.2008. 17.09.2008 CASH 40,000/ - RE DEPOSIT WITHDRAWAL MADE ON 15.07.2008. 17.10.2008 CASH 48,000/ - RE DEPOSIT WITHDRAWAL MADE ON 23.09.2008 & 06.10.2008 0 111.2008 CASH 30.000/ - RE DEPOSIT OF WITHDRAWAL MADE ON 27.09.2008. 10.01.2009 CASH 50.000/ - RE DEPOSIT WITHDRAWAL MADE ON 26.12.2008. 23.01.2009 CASH 1,00,000/ - RECEIPT FROM SALE OF SUGAR CANE 30.01.2009 CASH 2,00,000/ - RECEIPT FROM SALE OF SUGAR CANE. 09.02.2009 CASH 4,00,000/ - CASH DEPOSITED BY MR. HARENDRA KUMAR FOR DD TO PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL & REKHA DEVI AGARWAL R/O - SILLIGURI RS.2,00,000/ - EACH. 20.03.2009 CASH 2,00,000/ - RE - DEPOSIT WITHDRAWAL MADE ON 09.03.2009. 5 . THE AO DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AT PAGE NOS. 4 TO 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATE D 03.10.2011 , AS UNDER: CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.70,000/ - ON 13.05.2008: - IN THIS RESPECT ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT THAT IT IS 'SALE OF S UGER CANE'. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WHOLLY DEVOID OF MERIT AND LIABLE TO BE REJECTED ON SEVERAL GROUNDS AS FOLLOWS: - I) VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED:02.08.2011 ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO FURNISH THE NAME & COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE INSTIT UTION / PERSON TO WHOM SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD. FURTHER ON THIS VERY DAY ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE QUANTITY OF SUGER CANE & WHEAT & THE RATE @ ON WHICH SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD. BUT ASSESSEE NEITHER COULD FURNISH THE NAME & COMPLETE ADDRES S OF THE PERSONS/INSTITUTION WHOM SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 5 SOLD NOR HE COULD FURNISH ITS RATE PER QUINTAL & ITS QUANTITY. II) ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF - . 'SUGER CANE.' IN OTHER WORDS, ASSESSEE COULD NO T SUBSTANTIATE THIS DEPOSIT WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. III ) ABOVE ALL, ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED OR SHOWN ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT ON 29.03.2010 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 2009 - 10. IV) ON GOING O VER FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTION OF THE BANK PASS BOOK OF THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR IT WAS FOUND THAT ALL THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM SUGER CANE ARE RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES. V) EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.70,000/ - IS NOT SA TISFACTORY. VI) ALL THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF ASSESSEE & HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE MORTGAGED BEFORE THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARORA, ANOOPSHAHAR, BULANDSHAHAR. AND THE PERSONS WHO ARE SHOWING THEIR LANDS ARE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE ON LEASE HAS ALSOMORTGAGE D THEIR LAND BEFORE THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARORA, ANOOPSHAHAR, BSR. HENCE CONTENTION / EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY. SINCE, ASSESSEE FAIL TO EXPLAIN THE EXACT SOURCES OF ABOVE DEPOSITS OF RS.70,0007 - , HENC E, ADDITION OF RS.70,000/ - IS BEING HEREBY MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 6 DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. [ADDITION: RS.70,000/ - ]. CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.4,98,000/ - ON 09.06.2008: - IN THIS R ESPECT ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT THAT IT IS 'SALE OF SUGER CANE'. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WHOLLY DEVOID OF MERIT AND LIABLE TO BE REJECTED ON SEVERAL GROUNDS AS FOLLOWS: - I) VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED:02.08.2011 ASSESSEE WAS SP ECIFICALLY ASKED TO FURNISH THE NAME & COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE INSTITUTION / PERSON TO WHOM SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD. FURTHER ON THIS VERY DAY ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE QUANTITY OF SUGER CANE & WHEAT & THE RATE @ ON WHICH SUGER CANE & WHEAT WER E SOLD. BUT ASSESSEE NEITHER COULD FURNISH THE NAME & COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS/INSTITUTION WHOM SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD NOR HE COULD FURNISH ITS RATE PER QUINTAL & ITS QUANTITY. II) ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT O F SALE PROCEEDS OF - 'SUGER CANE.' IN OTHER WORDS, ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THIS DEPOSIT WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. III) ABOVE ALL, ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED OR SHOWN ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT ON 29.0 3.2010 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 2009 - 10. IV) ON GOING OVER FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTION OF THE BANK PASS BOOK OF THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR IT WAS FOUND THAT ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 7 ALL THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM SUGER CANE ARE RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES. V) EXPLANATION OFFERED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.4,98,000/ - IS NOT SATISFACTORY. VI) ALL THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF ASSESSEE & HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE MORTGAGED BEFORE THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARORA, ANOOPSHAHAR, BULANDSHAHAR. AND THE PERSONS WHO ARE SHOWING THEIR LANDS ARE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE ON LEASE HAS ALSO MORTGAGED THEIR LAND BEFORE THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARORA, ANOOPSHAHAR, BSR. HENCE CONTENTION/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY. SINCE, ASSESSEE FAIL TO EXPLAIN THE EXACT SOURCES OF ABOVE DEPOSITS OF RS.4,98,000/ - , HENCE, ADDITION OF RS.4,98,000/ - IS BEING HEREBY MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. [ADDITION: RS.4,98,000/ - ]. CAS H DEPOSIT OF RS.1,00,000/ - ON 23.06.2008: - IN THIS RESPECT ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT THAT IT IS 'SALE OF WHEAT'. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WHOLLY DEVOID OF MERIT AND LIABLE TO BE REJECTED ON SEVERAL GROUNDS AS FOLLOWS: - I) VIDE ORDE RSHEET ENTRY DATED:02.08.2011 ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO FURNISH THE NAME & COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE INSTITUTION/PERSON TO WHOM SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD. FURTHER ON THIS VERY DAY ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE QUANTITY OF SUGER CANE & WHEAT & THE RATE @ ON WHICH SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD. BUT ASSESSEE NEITHER COULD FURNISH THE NAME & COMPLETE ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 8 ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS/INSTITUTION WHOM SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD NOR HE COULD FURNISH ITS RATE PER QUINTAL & ITS QUANTITY. II) ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF - 'WHEAT.' IN OTHER WORDS, ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THIS DEPOSIT WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. III) ABOVE ALL, ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED OR SHOWN ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS RETURNS OF INCO ME FILED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT ON 29.03.2010 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 2009 - 10. IV) EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1,00,000 / - IS NOT SATISFACTORY. V) ALL THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF ASSESSEE & HIS FAMILY MEMB ERS ARE MORTGAGED BEFORE THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARORA, ANOOPSHAHAR, BULANDSHAHAR. AND THE PERSONS WHO ARE SHOWING THEIR LANDS ARE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE ON LEASE HAS ALSO MORTGAGED THEIR LAND BEFORE THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARORA, ANOOPSHAHAR, BSR. HENCE CONTENTION/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY. SINCE, ASSESSEE FAIL TO EXPLAIN THE EXACT SOURCES OF ABOVE DEPOSITS OF RS.1,00,000/ - , HENCE, ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/ - IS BEING HEREBY MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCO UNT OF CASH DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. [ADDITION: RS.1,00,000/ - ]. ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 9 CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.40,000/ - ON 17.09.2008: - IN THIS RESPECT ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOS IT THAT IT IS - RE DEPOSIT WITH DRAWAL MADE ON 15.07.2008. ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD IS NOT SATISFACTORY. BEING ON GOING OVER THE FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.2,00,000/ - ON 19.08.2008. HENCE IF HE HAD ANY SURPLUS OF CASH THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED ON OR BEFORE 19.08.2008. FURTHER, IN THAT, WITH DRAWAL MADE ON 28.07.2008 WAS DEPOSITED ON 19.08.2008, WHILE THIS WITHDRAWAL WAS MADE ON 15.07.2008 I.E. MUCH BEFORE THE 28.07.2008. HENCE, CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEVID OF MERIT AND LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. SINCE, ASSESSEE FAIL TO EXPLAIN THE EXACT SOURCES OF ABOVE DEPOSIT OF RS.40,000/ - , HENCE, ADDITION OF RS.40,000/ - IS BEING HEREBY MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM U NDISCLOSED SOURCES. [ADDITION: RS.40,000/ - ]. CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.1,00,000/ - ON 23.01.2009: - IN THIS RESPECT ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT THAT IT IS 'RECEIPT FROM SALE OF SUGER CANE'. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WHOLLY DEVOID OF MERIT AND LIABLE TO BE REJECTED ON SEVERAL GROUNDS AS FOLLOWS: - I) VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED:02.08.2011 ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO FURNISH THE NAME & COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE INSTITUTION/PERSON TO WHOM SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD. FURTHER ON THIS VERY D AY ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE QUANTITY OF SUGER CANE & WHEAT & THE RATE @ ON WH ICH SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD. BUT ASSESSEE NEITHER COULD ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 10 FURNISH THE NAME & COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS/INSTITUTION WHOM SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD NOR HE COULD FURNISH ITS RATE PER QUINTAL & ITS QUANTITY. II) ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF - 'SUGER CANE.' IN OTHER WORDS, ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THIS DEPOSIT WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. III) ABOVE ALL, ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED OR SHOWN ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT ON 29.03.2010 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 2009 - 10. IV) ON GOING OVER FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTION OF THE BANK PASS BOOK OF THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR IT WAS FOUND THAT ALL THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM SUGER CANE ARE RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES. V) EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.1,00,000/ - IS NOT SATISFACTORY. VI) ALL THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF ASSESSEE & HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE MORTGAGED BEFORE THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARORA, ANOOPSHAHAR, BULANDSHAHAR. AND THE PERSONS WHO ARE SHOWING THEIR LANDS ARE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE ON LEASE HAS ALSO MORTGAGED THEIR LAND BEFORE THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARORA, ANOOPSHAHAR , BS R. HENCE CONTENTION/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY. SINCE, ASSESSEE FAIL TO EXPLAIN THE EXACT SOURCES OF ABOVE DEPOSITS OF RS.1,00,000/ - , HENCE, ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/ - IS BEING HEREBY MADE TO THE ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 11 TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. [ADDITION: RS.1,00,000/ - ]. CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,00,000/ - ON 30.01.2009: - IN THIS RESPECT ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT THAT IT IS 'RECEIPT FROM SALE OF SUGER CANE' . THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS WHOLLY DEVOID OF MERIT AND LIABLE TO BE REJECTED ON SEVERAL GROUNDS AS FOLLOWS: - I) VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED:02.08.2011 ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO FURNISH THE NAME & COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE INST IT UTION/PERS ON TO WHOM SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD. FURTHER ON THIS VERY DAY ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE QUANTITY OF SUGER CANE & WHEAT & THE RATE @ ON WHICH SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD. BUT ASSESSEE NEITHER COULD FURNISH THE NAME & COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE PER SONS/INSTITUTION WHOM SUGER CANE & WHEAT WERE SOLD NOR HE COULD FURNISH ITS RATE PER QUINTAL & ITS QUANTITY. II) ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF - 'SUGER CANE.' IN OTHER WORDS, ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THIS DEPOSIT WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. III) ABOVE ALL, ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED OR SHOWN ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT ON 29.03.2010 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 2009 - 10. ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 12 IV) ON GOING OVER FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTION OF THE BANK PASS BOOK OF THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR IT WAS FOUND THAT ALL THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM SUGER CANE ARE RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES. V) EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.2,00,000/ - IS NOT SATISFACTORY. VI) ALL THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF ASSESSEE & HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE MORTGAGED BEFORE THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARORA, ANOOPSHAHAR, BULANDSHAHAR. AND THE PERSONS WHO ARE SHOWING THEIR LANDS ARE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE ON LEASE HAS ALSO MORTGAGED THEIR LAND BEFORE THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHARORA, ANOOPSHAHAR , BSR. HENCE CONTENTION/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY. SINCE, ASSESSEE FAIL TO EXPLAIN THE EXACT SOURCES OF ABOVE DEPOSITS OF RS.2,00,000/ - , HENCE, ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/ - IS B EING HEREBY MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. [ADDITION: RS.2,00,000/ - ]. CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.4,00,000/ - O N 09.02.2009: - IN THIS RESPECT ASSESSES EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.4,00,000/ - ARE 'CASH LOAN FROM SHRI HARENDRA KUMAR FOR DD TO PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL & REKHA DEVI AGARWAL, R/O - SILLIGURI, RS.2,00,0007 - EACH.' TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THIS CASH LOAN VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED: 02.08.2011, 1 7.08.2011 AND 12.09.2011, ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO PRODUCE MR. HARENDER KUMAR, SO THAT THIS CASH LOAN COULD BE EXAMINED PROPERLY. BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE MR. HARENDER KUMAR. NONE THE LESS, ON 19.09.2011 A SUMMON U/S - 131 WAS ISSUED FIXING T HE DATE THEREIN FOR 29.09.2011, FOR PERSONAL PRESENCE OF MR. HARENDRA KUMAR ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS BY ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 13 THE ASSESSEE. BUT ON THE FIXED DATE OF 29.09.2011 NOBODY ATTENDED THE CASE. HENCE, HERE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVED THE IDENTITY OF CASH LOAN CREDITOR & ALSO FAILED TO PROVE HIS CREDITWORTHINESS OF LOAN CREDITOR. IN THIS CONNECTION FURTHER DISCREET ENQUIRY WAS MADE, IN THE WAKE OF ENQUIRY IT WAS FOUND THAT SOME ASSOCIATES OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM MR.PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL & REKHA DEVI AGARW AL OF SILLIGURI. AND ASSESSEE PROVIDED ACCOUNTED MONEY THROUGH ROUTING/DEPOSITING HIS UN - ACCOUNTED MONEY AND BY MAKING DRAFT. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, IT IS ALSO DECIPHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO USING HIS BANK ACCOUNT FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION / FAKE EN TRIES. IN VIEW OF THESE FOREGOING FACTS OF THE CASE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.4,00,000/ - ON 09.02.2009 IS NOT SATISFACTORY. SINCE, ASSESSEE FAIL TO EXPLAIN THE EXACT SOURCES OF AFORESAID CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.4,00 ,000/ - , HENCE, ADDITION OF RS.4,00,000/ - IS BEING HEREBY MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. [ADDITION: RS.4,00,000/ - ]. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF THE IMPUG NED AMOUNT WAS MADE. 6 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SIZABLE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ON WHICH HE HAD BEEN DOING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND GROWING SUGARCANE AND WHEAT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON A REASONABLE ESTIMATE HE AND HIS FAMILY WAS HAVING A MINIMUM INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,09,000/ - ANNUALLY. ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 14 THEREFORE, A FAIR AMOUNT OF CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM WHICH HE HAD DEPOSITED PERIODICALLY. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING IN PARAS 5.4 & 5 .5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER: 5.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS OF THE AR AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FIRST OF ALL OUT OF 13 INSTANCES OF CASH DEPOSITS, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ONLY 7 INSTANCES. THE REST HE HAS TREATED AS EXPLAINED. TH US, THE AO HAS NOT BLINDLY AND M ECHANICALLY CONSIDERED ALL CASH DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT SHOWN ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS POINT HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED PROPERLY BY THE AR. HE HAS MERELY STATED THAT AS THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME DOES NOT INVITE TAXATION, THE APPELLANT DID NOT PREFER TO SHOW ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AO HAS ALSO MADE AN OBSERVATION THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM SUGAR CANE ARE RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES. ON THIS POINT THE AR HAS NOT MADE ANY COMMENT. 5.5 ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE FACTS, I HAVE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE THESE ADDITION S. THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,08,000 / - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IS SUSTAINED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 4 TO 10 ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 15 8 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BE FORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RESIDES IN A JOINT FAMILY AND OWNS A TOTAL OF 72 BIGHA S AT VILLAGE - CHARORA, TEHSIL ANOOPSHAHAR, DISTRICT - BULANDSHAHAR AND HAD TAKEN 85 BIGHA S ON BATAI (LEASE) FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AND CUL TIVATED TOTAL LAND MEASURING 157 BIGHA S BUT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE S INCOME IS ESTIMATED @ RS.9,000/ - PER BIGHA, THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS AT RS.14,13 ,000/ - AND AFTER ADJUSTING THE PAYMENT OF LAND LEASE AMOUNTING TO RS.2,04,000/ - , T HE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A MINIMUM AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.12,09,000/ - PER ANNUM WHICH WAS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT F EW OF THE DEPOSITS W ERE OUT OF THE EARLIER WITHDRAWALS BUT THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND THE LD. C IT(A). THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 9 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR STR ONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A ) IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS. ITA NO. 6694 /DEL /201 4 ANIL KUMAR 16 10 . I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE AO WHILE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE, EVEN HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EARLIER WITHDRAWALS WHICH WERE RE - DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND HAD ALSO NOT GIVEN DUE WEIGHT AGE TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. I, THEREFORE, BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE RE - ADJUDICATED IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 11 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . (ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE CO URT ON 22 /11 /2016) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 22 /11 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR