Sh. Navinder Singh, Patiala V. ITO, Rajpura

ITA 924/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5009 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.924/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SH. NAVINDER SINGH, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.NO.792, SUNDER NAGAR, WARD RAJPURA. RAJPURA, DISTT. PATIALA. PAN: CDBPS1646G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI JASPAL SHARMA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 22.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.05.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ), MEERUT, CAMP OFFICE PATIALA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED T O AS CIT(APPEALS)] DATED 10.6.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING INCOME O F RS.1,56,780/- PLUS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,35,0 00/-. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS FRAMED MAKING ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF THE FOLLOWING: 1) UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK = RS.10 LACS 2) AGRICULTURAL INCOME TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES = RS.1,35,000/- 2 3) BANK INTEREST EARNED = RS. 19,632/- 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER TO THE CIT(APPEALS) WHO UPHELD ALL THE ADDITIONS MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 6. IN GROUND NO.2 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSI TS IN BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.10 LACS, AND WHICH READS AS UND ER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HAVING CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.10,00,000/- MADE BY THE LD.AO U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS ASSESSEE'S INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 7. BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUN T, DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, TO THE TUNE OF RS.10 LACS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAME TO HAVE BEEN R ECEIVED AS GIFT FROM HIS FATHER-IN-LAW TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 7 LACS AND FROM HIS FATHER TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 LACS. THE AS SESSEE PRODUCED AFFIDAVITS FROM BOTH. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, HOWEVER, AFTER EXAMINING BOTH THE DONORS IN DETAIL BY RECORDING THEIR STATEMENTS AND ANALYZING THEIR AGRI CULTURAL TRANSACTIONS, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE SOURCE AND CAPACITY TO GIFT SUCH SUMS TO THE AS SESSEE. 3 HE, THEREFORE, HELD THE IMPUGNED DEPOSITS TO BE UNE XPLAINED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD EXAMINED THE ISSUE VERY MINUTELY AND HAD BEEN ABLE TO MARSHAL FACTS WHICH GAVE HIM ROOM TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THE ISSUE. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD EVEN A SHRED OF EVIDENCE WHICH COULD ESTABLISH THE CAPACITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS AND ACCORD SOME LEV EL OF PLAUSIBILITY AND RELIABILITY TO THE EXPLANATION REN DERED BY HIM WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF RS.10 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD.CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE WITH RESPECT TO HIS EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK, UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AN D STATED THEREIN THAT ALL THE EVIDENCES, NOW BEING FILED BEF ORE US, WERE FILED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DURING ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A PPEALS) SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) TO FILE ONLY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE CASE AND WAS TOLD THAT THE ATTENDANCE WAS NOT NECESSARY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THEREFORE , PLEADED THAT THE SAID EVIDENCES, GOING TO THE ROOT OF THE M ATTER, BE 4 ADMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THAT THESE EVIDENCES WERE THERE BEFORE T HE AO. 10. SINCE ADMITTEDLY ALL THESE EVIDENCES HAD BEEN F ILED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAME, WE HOLD, DO NOT CO NSTITUTE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, SINCE THEY ALREADY FORMED PAR T OF THE RECORDS OF THE REVENUE, VIS--VIS THE IMPUGNED CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE WITH THE CIT(APPEALS) ALSO. WE, THEREFORE, SEE NO REQUIREME NT OF FORMALLY ADMITTING THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF THESE EVIDENCES. 11. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REPE ATEDLY ATTRIBUTED THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED OF RS.1 0 LACS TO GIFTS RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER-IN-LAW OF RS.7 LACS AND FROM HIS FATHER OF RS.3 LACS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSES SEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE STATEMENTS OF THE AFORESAID TW O PERSONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEIR AFFIDAVITS ALSO ADMITTING TO THE AFORESAID FACTS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THER EAFTER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND POIN TED OUT THAT THE REASON FOR REJECTING THE AFORESAID EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THE INVESTIGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH REVEALED THAT BOTH THE PERSONS HAD NOT SOLD A NY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TO THEIR RESPECTIVE BROKERS DU RING THE IMPUGNED YEAR AND, THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO THAT THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN POSSESSION OF SUFFICIEN T SUMS TO 5 GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THEREAFTER STATED THAT THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION WAS INCORRECT, SINCE BOTH THE PERSONS HAD CLAIMED THE SOURCE OF THEIR GI FT AS, BESIDES AGRICULTURAL INCOME, SAVINGS AND LOAN FROM BROTHERS. THEREFORE HOLDING THEM TO BE UNCREDITWOR THY ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THEY WERE FOUND NOT TO HAVE EAR NED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS INCORRECT. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTI ON TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF HIS FATHER, PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.7 STATING SO AS UNDER: I, HARBHALAN SINQH S/O SH. HARBANS SINGH, AGED 13 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SUNDER NAGAR, RAJPURA, DISTT. PATIALA D O HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT I AM AGRICULTURIST AND OWNER IN POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURE LAND MSG. 6 ACRE. 2. THAT 1 HAVE GIVEN RS.300000/- (RS.THREE LAC) TO MY SON SH. NAVINDER SINQH WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION FOR HIS PE RSONAL HELP ON 17.05.2010. 3. THAT I HAVE GIVEN THIS AMOUNT OUT OF MY AGRICULTUR E RECEIPTS AND PREVIOUS SAVINGS. DEPONENT VERFICATION: VERIFIED AT RAJPURA ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF APRIL,2013. THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT ARE CORRECT AND TRUE TO THE BEST OF M Y KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND NOTHING HAS BEEN CONCEALED THEREFROM. DEPONENT 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THEREAFTER DREW OU R ATTENTION TO THE STATEMENT OF THE FATHER OF THE ASS ESSEE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN HE REPEA TEDLY STATED THAT RS.3 LACS WAS LYING WITH HIM WHICH HE H AD GIFTED TO HIS SON. THE STATEMENT READS AS UNDER: Q.4 PLEASE STATE HOW AND WHEN THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ARE SOLD? 6 ANS: ALL THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ARE BROUGHT TO ANAJ MANDI AND ARE SOLD THROUGH M/S JAGDISH KUMAR SANJAY KUMAR, SHOP NO.19, RAJPURA. ALL THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ARE SOLD IN CASH. Q.5 PLEASE PRODUCE YOUR ACCOUNT AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ABOVE MENTIONED FIRM FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2010 TO 31.3.2011? ANS: SIR THE ACCOUNT IS NOT READILY AVAILABLE ME. I T SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN YOUR OFFICE BY 11.9.2012. Q.6 HAVE YOU GIVEN ANY MONEY/LOAN/ADVANCE TO SHRI NAVINDER SINGH DURING THE PERIOD 1.4.2010 TO 31.3.2011, IF SO PLEASE STATE HOW MUCH AMOUNT WAS GIVEN AND THE SOURCE THEREOF? ANS: I HAVE GIVEN RS.3 LACS TO MY SON SHRI NAVINDER SINGH WHICH WAS LYING WITH ME AT HOME. Q.7 AS ALREADY STATED BY YOU THAT MONEY WAS LYING WITH YOU AT HOME. PLEASE STATE ON THE DATE OF GIVING GIFT OF RS.3 LACS TO YOUR SON HOW MUCH MONEY WAS LYING WITH YOU AND WHERE FROM IT HAS COME TO YOU? ANS: I HAVE GIVEN GIFT OF RS.3 LACS TO MY SON IN TH E MONTH OF MAY, 2010 WHICH I HAVE GOT FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND AS ON THAT DATE RS.3 LACS WERE WITH ME. Q.8 PLEASE STATE WHETHER THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ARE BARRED BY YOU OR BY YOUR SON? ANS: ALL THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ARE BORNE BY MY SON. Q.9 I AM SHOWING YOU THE AFFIDAVIT DT.15.4.2013 PLEASE STATE WHETHER IT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY YOU? ANS: YES I HAVE GIVEN THE AFFIDAVIT. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT RS.3 LACS WAS ADMITTEDLY GIFTE D BY THE FATHER FROM HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND PAST SAVING S WHICH WERE AVAILABLE WITH HIM IN CASH. 14. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ST ATED THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INCOME F ROM 7 AGRICULTURE DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR AS SESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS CATEGORICALLY STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FATHER OWNED 6 ACRES OF LAND EARNING RS.35,000/- PER ACRE ON THE SAME AND DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF JAMABANDHI AND GIRDAWARI WA S FILED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSTANTIATING THE SAID CO NTENTION VIDE LETTER DATED 12.8.2013 FILED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THEREAFTER S TATED THAT IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) VIDE SUBMIS SIONS DATED 24.2.2016 THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE FATHER FROM HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS NAME WITH THE BROKER SINCE HE USED TO SELL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ON BEHALF OF HIS FATHER AND TH AT SOME J FORMS WERE ALSO ISSUED IN HIS NAME. COPIES OF T HE SAID J FORMS FILED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS.24 TO 29 WERE ALSO POINTED OUT TO US REFLECTING THE AFORESAID FACTS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, STATED THAT IT WAS ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRAT ED THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS SHOWN AS SOLD IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE BROKER. LD.COUNSEL THEREFORE CONT ENDED THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE BROKER TO THE AO, T O THE EFFECT THAT NO SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE HAD BEE N MADE BY THE FATHER, MERITED NO CONSIDERATION AT ALL. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAD NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIAT ED THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ON. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS EX AMINING 8 THE BROKER WAS ALSO AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE, AND T HEREFORE WHICH NO COGNIZANCE COULD BE TAKEN OF THE AVERMENTS OF THE BROKER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. VIS--VIS THE GIFT OF RS.7 LACS RECEIVED FROM T HE FATHER- IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE CO NTENDED THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE FATHER-IN-LAW AND HIS STA TEMENT RECORDED BY THE AO, CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE G IFTS HAD BEEN GIVEN OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, SALE PRO CEEDS OF PERSONAL EFFECTS, AND LOAN OF RS.2 LACS EACH FROM H IS BROTHERS WHO WERE ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE. THE CONT ENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 3 ARE AS UN DER: 3. THAT I HAVE GIVEN THIS AMOUNT OF OUT OF MY AGRIC ULTURE RECEIPTS AND SALE PROCEEDS OF PERSONAL EFFECTS AND LOANS FROM BROTHERS IN LAW SH. BHAG SINGHJ S/O SH. MEHTAB SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHUMA, TESHIL RAJPURA, D ISTT. PATIALA WORTH RS.2.00 LACS AND SH. GURMEET SINGH S/O SH. LABH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHAPAL, TEHSIL RAJP URA WORTH RS.2.00 LACS. 16. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT CLEARL Y AS PER THE ADMISSION OF THE FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SOURCE OF THE GIFT WAS NOT ONLY FROM THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME BUT ALSO FROM LOANS TAKEN FROM HIS BROTHER AND OTHE R SOURCES ALSO. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED T HAT AS IN THE CASE OF THE FATHER, IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO WAS THE OWNER OF 10 ACRES OF LAND AND EVIDENCES BY WAY OF JAMABANDHI AND GIRDAWARI OF HIS LAND PROVING OWNERS HIP WERE FILED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THA T CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAD ERRED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED A DDITION 9 MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE BROKER WHO WAS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO BE CROSS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESS EE. 17. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND STATED THAT THE INVEST IGATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CATEGORICALLY PROVED THAT THE SAID TWO PERSONS WERE NOT CREDITWORTHY FOR MAKING THE IMPUGN ED GIFT. THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THE BROKER ON EXA MINATION HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT NO SALE WAS MADE BY T HOSE TWO PERSONS AND, THEREFORE, THEY COULD NOT HAVE SUFFICI ENT FUNDS AVAILABLE TO GIVE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS ALSO THE DOC UMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE US. THE ADDITION IN THE PRESENT CA SE HAS BEEN MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPO SITED IN BANK AND ATTRIBUTED TO GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE, WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED, SINCE THE DONORS WERE N OT FOUND CREDITWORTHY ENOUGH FOR MAKING THE GIFTS. TH E BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION WAS THAT WHILE THE SOURCE OF THE GIFTS WAS CLAIMED TO BE FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOM E, THE DONORS ALLEGEDLY DID NOT HAVE ANY AGRICULTURAL INCO ME EARNED DURING THE YEAR, AS PER THE INVESTIGATION CA RRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY EXAMINING THE BROKER TO WHOM THEY SOLD AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. 19. WE FIND THAT THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITED H AS BEEN ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED AND THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE R EASONING AND BASIS OF THE REVENUE FOR HOLDING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED. FIRSTLY IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD, 10 THAT THE DONORS HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE THE GIFT N OT ONLY FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME, BUT ALSO THEIR SAVINGS AN D LOAN TAKEN FROM BROTHERS. THIS FACT IS CLEARLY BROUGHT O UT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE DONORS WHICH IS NOT CONTROVERT ED BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, IN ANY CASE, THE DONORS COULD N OT HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE NOT CREDIT WORTHY MERELY BECAUSE TH EY DID NOT HAVE ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. EVEN OTHERWISE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEMONSTRATED THE CAPACITY OF THE DONORS TO EARN SUFFICIENT AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY SU BMITTING EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP OF LAND OF 6ACRES BY THE FATH ER AND 10 ACRES BY THE FATHER-IN-LAW, BY SUBMITTING THEIR JAM ABANDIS. EVEN THE GIRDAWARIS OF BOTH THE LANDS WAS FURNISHED AS EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN. THE REVENUE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THESE FACTS ALSO. FURTHER WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT HE HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE DURING THE YEAR THROUGH HIS SON, THE ASSESSEE, WHO DID NOT OWN ANY LAND AND THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY SOLD ANY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE GROWN BY HIM. J FORMS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FURNISHED AS EVIDENCE. THIS FACT IS CORROBORATED BY THE ACT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HI MSELF WHO TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASS ESSEE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON THE BASIS THAT THE AS SESSEE DID NOT OWN ANY LAND AND THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE P OSSIBLY EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND, HAS SUFFICIENTLY DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE GEN UINENESS OF THE GIFT RECEIVED. 11 20. WITHOUT CONTROVERTING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE GIFT S, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF THE BROKER, A THIRD PARTY, WHICH STATE MENT WAS ADMITTEDLY NOT EVEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT NO STATEMENT RECORDED O R EVIDENCE COLLECTED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE TREATED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST IT, WITHOUT CONFRONTING IT TO THE ASSESSEE AND GIVING HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE SAME. 21. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE CASH DEP OSITED IN THE BANK OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.10 LA CS STANDS DULY EXPLAINED AND THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGARD IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 22. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST T HE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,35,000/- MADE BY T REATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HIS OWN INCOME FROM UN-EXPLAINED SOURCES. THE SAID GROUND READS AS UNDER: 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HAVING CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.L,35,00 0/- MADE BY THE LD.AO U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, TREA TING THE SAME AS ASSESSEE'S INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOUR CES. 23. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED A SUM OF RS.1,35,000/- AS HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE YE AR. WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THA T HE HAD NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ADDED THE SAME TO HIS INCOME AS INCOME F ROM UN- EXPLAINED SOURCE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APP EALS). 12 24. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE EXPLANATION GIVEN TO THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT OWNER OF ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AGRICULTURAL LAN D WAS OWNED BY HIS FATHER ONLY BUT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE W AS SOLD BY HIM IN HIS NAME AND, THEREFORE, HE INADVERTENTLY REFLECTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN HIS OWN NAME I NSTEAD OF HIS FATHER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OU T THAT THE DOCUMENTS PROVING THE OWNERSHIP OF FATHER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE FORM OF JAMABANDHI AND GIR DAWARI WERE FILED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSE L FOR ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE EVIDENCES OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE BY WAY OF J FORMS, ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO FILED IN SUPPORT OF HIS ABOVE AVERMENTS. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SINCE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS OWNED BY HIS FATHER, THE AGRI CULTURAL PRODUCE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTE D AS HIS INCOME AND SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION HAD BEEN FURNI SHED IN THIS REGARD. 25. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 26. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL F OR ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INADVERTENTLY RETURN ED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,35,000/-, WHICH ACTUALL Y BELONGED TO HIS FATHER AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO R EASON TO TREAT THE SAID AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WHILE 13 ADJUDICATING GROUND NO.2 ABOVE, WE HAVE ACCEPTED TH AT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED FROM THE SALE OF AGRICUL TURAL PRODUCE, REFLECTED IN THE J FORMS ISSUED IN THE N AME OF THE ASSESSEE, WERE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FATHER OF THE AS SESSEE, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT HIS OWNERSHIP OF LAND WAS ESTABLISHED BUT NO SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS SHOWN IN HIS NAME BY THE BROKER. THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SHOWN AS SOL D BY HIM WAS ACTUALLY ON BEHALF OF HIS FATHER, WAS ACCEP TED. HAVING ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE BONAFIDE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES PRODU CED, WE, SEE NO REASON TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.1,3 5,000/- TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME RETURNED BY THE AS SESSEE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 28 TH MAY, 2018 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH