Anandhi Akilan, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 974/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5001 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Onus to prove
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , ! ' . #$ , % &' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NOS. 970 TO 974/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 TO 2008-09, 2010-11& 201 1-12 SMT. ANANDHI AKILAN , #9, STATE BANK COLONY, SHASTRI NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI 600020. PAN AFQPJ5942P ( /APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-15(1), CHENNAI-34. RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SENTHILKUMAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT ! / DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2017 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.04 .2017 ( / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 2 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. THE FIRST COMMON GROUND IN ITA NOS.970, 971 972/MDS/2016 IS WITH REGARD TO REOPENING OF ASSESSM ENT. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. ACCO RDINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, AS NOT PRESSED. 4. THE NEXT GROUND IN ITA NOS.970 & 971/MDS/2016 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF 5 LAKHS IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEARS TOWARDS GIFT RECEIVED FROM SISTER, MS. SATHYA. 5. THE FACTS AS NARRATED FOR THE AY 2006-078 ARE TH AT THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF 5 LAKHS AS GIFT RECEIVED FROM MS. SATHYA, SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT S HE HAS GIVEN GIFT OF 5 LAKHS, EVEN THOUGH HER TOTAL INCOME IS 5,16,339/- AND COPY OF HER BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT PRODUCED. THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DONOR IS HER YOUNGER SISTER AND SHE HAS GIVEN CONFIRMATION LETTER ALONG WITH CHEQUE NO. AND PAN. THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 25.01.2016 HAD STATED THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT W AS GIVEN TO - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 3 THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED FURTHER SUBMISS IONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED A COPY OF HER BANK ACCOU NT EVEN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ACTI ON OF THE AO IN ADDING 5LAKSH IS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE GIFT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM HER OWN SISTER, WHO IS AN INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE AND SHE CONFI RMED THE GIFT ALONG WITH PAYMENT OF CHEQUE ONLY. SHE HAS ALSO GI VEN THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER(PAN). THEREFORE, IN OUR V IEW, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DOUBTING T HE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT, UNLESS THERE IS CONTRARY EVIDENCE AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE. BEING SO, WE ARE DELETING THE ADDITION M ADE TOWARDS THE GIFT FROM HER SISTER IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7. THE NEXT COMMON GROUND IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS W ITH REGARD TO TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS NON-A GRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS FOLLOWS : - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 4 ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BILLS & VOUCHERS. AS SUCH, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICT ED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DISALLOWED THE SAME AS ABOV E. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(AP PEALS), WHO DIRECTED THE AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION AS REFLECT ED IN CASH FLOW STATEMENT. 8. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE A.Y 2006-07, T HE ASSESSEE OWNING 11.85 ACRES OF LAND AND BEING SO, A GRICULTURAL INCOME CANNOT BE DOUBTED. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE A.Y 20 06-07 ONLY 2,22,996/- AND ANOTHER AMOUNT OF 1,27,000/- SHOWN AS AN ADVANCE RECEIVED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND IT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. 8.1 FOR THE AY 2007-08, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSSEE DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT 4,19,940/- AND OUT A.Y AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ( ) DISALLOWED BY THE AO ( ) 2006-07 3,49,996/- 3,31,776/- 2007-08 4,19,940/- 3,60,690/- 2008-09 17,75,403/- 17,16,153/- 2010-11 9,78,747/- 7,34,547/- 2011-12 12,71,995/- 10,27,795/- - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 5 OF THIS, THE AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF 3,60,690/- AND ESTIMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT 5000/- PER ACRE AND COMPUTED 59,250/- FROM 11.85 ACRES OF LAND. ACCORDING TO TH E LD. AR, CIT(APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXT ENT OF THE AMOUNT SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE CASH FLO W STATEMENT I.E. 2,51,463/-. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT PR OPER TO DENY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 8.2 FOR THE AY 2008-09, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS OWNING 24.93 ACRES OF LAND PUZHUDIVAKKA M AND 3.95 ACRES AT MOLAVANOOR. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AS SESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 13,48,928/- AFTER CLAIMING OF EXPENDITURE OF 4,26,502/- FROM GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 17,75,403/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) RESTRIC TED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, WHICH IS A LSO INCORRECT. 8.3 FOR THE AY 2010-11, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSSEE DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 7,67,800/- FROM 12.33 ACRES AND 3.95 ACRES SITUATED AT PUZHUDIVAKKA M AND - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 6 MOLAVANOOR RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, THE AO DISALLOW ED AN AMOUNT OF 7,34,547/- AND THE CIT(APPEALS) RESTRICTED TO THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, WHICH IS NOT PROPER. 8.4 FOR THE AY 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AGRI CULTURAL INCOME OF 8,92,992/- AND 12,71,995/- FROM THE 12.33 AND 3.95 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED IN THE ABOVE PLACES. T HE CIT(APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RECEIPT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMEN T AS IN THE EARLIER YEAR. 9. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON SIMILAR ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AY 2009-10 IN ITA NO.57 4/MDS/2012 DATED 25.05.2012 AND THE TRIBUNAL ESTIMATED THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH READS AS FOLL OWS : 8. WITH REGARD TO SECOND ISSUE, I.E. INCOME FROM SALE OF COCONUTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM SALE OF COCONUT S. THE - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 7 ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE TREATING THE INCOME FROM SA LE OF COCONUT TREES AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HAS OBSE RVED THAT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT ` 2,400/- WORTH OF TREES WOULD HAVE YIELDED AN AMOUNT OF ` 66,820/-. THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT HE HAS AB OUT 275 COCONUT TREES OUT OF WHICH HE HAS PLANTED 200 COCON UT TREES IN THE YEAR 2004-05. THE COCONUT TREES START YIELDI NG FRUIT IN THREE YEARS TIME AND IT WAS DURING THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE TREES PLANTED BY THE ASSESSEE GAVE FRUITS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO EARN ` 66,820/- FROM THE SALE OF COCONUTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE LAND ON WHICH COCONUTS TREES WERE PLA NTED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE D.R. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DI SALLOWED THE ENTIRE INCOME FROM COCONUT TREES. NO VALID RATI ONALE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING THE INCOME FROM SALE OF COCONUT TREES AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME D URING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S ONLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE A NY DOCUMENTS ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TREES WERE PLA NTED AFTER THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND OR THAT THEY EXISTED AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE. ON THE BASIS OF THIS PRESUMPTION ALONE , THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED THE BENEFIT OF INCOME EAR NED BY HIM FROM THE SALE OF COCONUTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(1A) OF THE ACT, AGRICULTURAL INCOME MEANS (A) ANY RENT OR REVENUE DERIVED FROM LAND WHICH IS SITUATED IN INDIA AND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES; (B) ANY INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH LAND BY AGRICULTUR E OR PERFORMANCE BY CULTIVATOR OR RENT IN KIND OF ANY PR OCEES - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 8 ORDINARILY EMPLOYED BY A CULTIVATOR OR RECEIVER OF RENT-IN-KIND TO RENDER THE PRODUCE RAISED OR RECEIVED BY HIM FIT TO BE TAKEN TO MARKET. THE TERM AGRICULTURE HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN THE ACT. ONE MUST NECESSARILY FALL BACK UPON THE SENSE IN WHICH IT IS UNDERSTOOD IN COMMON PARLANCE. AGRICULTURE IN IT S ROOT SENSE MEANS AGAR A FIELD AND CULTURE, CULTIVAT ION OF A FIELD WHICH OF COURSE IMPLIES EXPENDITURE ON HUMAN SKIL LS AND LABOUR UPON LAND. FOR GROWING COCONUT TREES ONE HAS TO PERFORM BASIC ESSENTIAL OPERATIONS WHICH INVOLVE EX PENDITURE OF HUMAN SKILL AND LABOUR UPON THE LAND. THE ASSES SEE MUST HAVE PERFORMED THE BASIC OPERATIONS REQUIRED FOR G ROWING COCONUT TREES VIZ TILLING OF THE LAND, PLANTING ET C. THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE TAKEN GOOD CARE OF THE COCONUT T REES FOR THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS BEFORE THEY START YIELDIN G FRUIT. WE ARE, THEREFORE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT GROW ING OF COCONUT TREES REQUIRE BASIC MINIMUM OF SKILL, LABOU R ETC. THEREFORE, THE INCOME EARNED FROM COCONUT TREES DE SERVES TO BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HOWEVER, AS P ER THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT IT HAS EARNED INCOME FROM SALE OF COCONUTS. A PERUSAL OF RECORDS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SMALL TIME FARMER. HE MAY NOT HAVE MA INTAINED RECORD OF SALE OF COCONUTS. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF UN- REBUTTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, AND THAT HE HAD PLANTED COCONUT TREE S ON THE SAME, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, IT WOULD BE JUST AND APPROPRIATE IF 50% OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED AS INCOME FROM SALE OF COCONUTS AND IS TREA TED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 9 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS DELETED TO THAT EXTENT. THE 50% INCOME FROM SALE OF COCONUT IS DIRECTED TO BE CONSIDERED AS AGRICULT URAL INCOME. 9. THE THIRD ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS A PPEAL IS REGARDING INCOME FROM SALE OF TURMERIC . THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF ` 2,95,780/-, THE AMOUNT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF TU RMERIC. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE DATE OF ALLEGED SALE OF TUR MERIC AND THE HARVESTING SEASON OF THE PRODUCE IS NOT TENABLE . THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT HAS BEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE USE TO SELL THE PRODUCE ONLY DURING THE TI ME WHEN HE USED TO GET MAXIMUM PRICE FOR THE CROP. IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT AND PRUDENT KNOWLEDGE THAT THE FARMERS THOSE W HO COULD AFFORD TO HOLD THE PRODUCE AND WAIT FOR THE RIGHT TIME WHEN THEY CAN GET MAXIMUM PRICE FOR THE CROP WOULD SELL THE SAME, WHEN THEY GET BEST/MAXIMUM PRICE OF THEIR PR ODUCE. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION THAT SIN CE THE HARVESTING SEASON AND SALE OF CROP DO NOT COINCIDE, THE INCOME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TURNED DOWN THE STAND OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT ONCE THE TURMERIC IS HARVESTED AFTER MAKING CERTAIN PROCESS, IT IS STORED AND WHEN THE PRICES ARE HIGH THE SAME IS SOLD. THE COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICAL LY STATED THAT THE TOTAL LAND UNDER CULTIVATION OF COCONUTS A ND TURMERIC IS APPROXIMATELY 3.9 ACRES AND THE CYCLE OF CULTIVA TION AND HARVESTING OF TURMERIC CROP IS FROM 6 TO 7 MONTHS. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONS IDERATION - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 10 THE ABOVE FACTS HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF ` 2,95,780/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF T URMERIC AND THE SAME HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IN A MEC HANICAL MANNER. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL A S WELL. 10.1 BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL TO ESTIMA TE THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF INCOME DETERMINED BY THE AO IN ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN PROPORTIONATE TO THE LAND HOLDING I N THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN ALL THESE AS SESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 11. THE NEXT GROUND IN ITA NO.971/MDS/2016 FOR THE AY 2007-08 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF 29,50,000/- RECEIVED FROM FATHER-IN-LAW. 12. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE MODE OF PAYMENT AND THE MODE THE RECEIPT OF 29,50,000/-. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE SUCH AS THE PROPERTY WHICH IS OWNED BY HER FATHER-IN-LAW AND THE AGREEME NT COPY ETC. - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 11 AND THIS IS ONLY A FAMILY ARRANGEMENT. WHILE GOING THROUGH THE RETURN OF THE FATHER-IN-LAW, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT HE HAS RETURNED INCOME OF 3,04,090/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 1,98,715/-. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO HOW A PERSON WITH THE RETURNED INCOME OF 3,04,090/- CAN RECEIVE SUCH AN AMOUNT AND REPAY IT. IN THE ABSENC E OF DETAILS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE TRANSACTION IS NOT A GENUI NE TRANSACTION AND THE AMOUNT OF 29,50,000/- SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW IS TREATED AS UNEXP LAINED CREDIT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.68 OF THE IT ACT. AGG RIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 13. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT 29,50,000/- WAS RETURNED BY HER FATHER-IN-LAW OUT O F 36,50,000/- GIVEN TO HIM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE MODE OF PAYMENT AND RECEIPT BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) ALSO. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FULL ADDRESS, PAN AND COPY OF RETURN WAS GIVEN AND TRANS ACTIONS ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE AO IN HIS REMAND RE PORT DATED 25.1.2016 HAS STATED THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE CO NFIRMED AND THE COPY OF THE SAME WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS NOT - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 12 FURNISHED FURTHER SUBMISSIONS. NO DETAILS, REGARD ING DATES OF SUCH ADVANCE GIVEN AND RECEIVED WERE NOT GIVEN AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT SUCH ADVANCES W ERE THROUGH TRANSFER/ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ONLY. THERE FORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF 29,50,000/- MADE BY THE AO. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE P AID A SUM OF 36.5 LAKHS TO ASSESSEES FATHER-IN-LAW MR.V.RAMANAT HAN AS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION TO PURCHASE A FLAT AT NO. 1, A BLOCK, KESHAV DURGAR APARTMENTS, R.A.PURAM, CHENNAI-28 ON 21.06.2001, IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- DATE AMOUNT PAID AMOUNT RECEIVED REF. IN PAPER BOOK A.Y 2007-08, PAGE NO. REF. IN PAPER BOOK A.Y 2008- 09, PAGE NO. 09.03.2007 9,00,000 1A 10.03.2007 9,00,000 1B 13.03.2007 9,50,000 1B 15.03.2007 9,50,000 1B TOTAL 36,50,000 16.03.2007 -- 29,50,000 26 & 55 27.09.2007 -- 7,00,000 1 TOTAL 36,50,000 SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS IN URGENT TO PURCHASE ANOTHE R PROPERTY - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 13 AT PUZBHUTHIVAKKAM, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT HAD REQUE STED MR.V.RAMANATHAN TO RETURN 29.50 LAKHS AND RECEIVED THE SAME ON 16.03.2007 AND THE BALANCE OF 7 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED ON 27.09.2007. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE IDENTIFIED T HE PERSON FROM WHOM IT IS RECEIVED I.E. FROM MR.V.RAMANTHAN AND ALSO PROVIDED HIS FULL ADDRESS AND HIS PAN AND A COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME WAS PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 1 TO 21 OF THE PAPE R BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS REGARDING IDENTITY OF THE PARTY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND SOURCE O F THE SAME. SINCE THE TRANSACTION IS THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED. IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO REASON TO SUST AIN THE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 15. THE NEXT GROUND IN ITA NO.971/MDS/2016 FOR THE AY 2007-08 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF 6,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM MR.AKILAN RAMNATHAN, HER HUSBAND. 16. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF 6,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AS LOAN FROM HER H USBAND. - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 14 THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LOAN OF 22,00,000/- FROM HER HUSBAND IN CASH FLOW STATEMENT BUT 16,00,000/- ONLY IS REFLECTED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE AO M ADE THE ADDITION OF 6 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT SHE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN C ASH BOOK AND HER HUSBAND IS ASSESSED WITH THE SAME AO. THE AO I N HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 25.1.2016 HAS STATED THAT THE A DDITION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED AND THE COPY OF THE SAME WAS GI VEN TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED FURTHER SUBMISSIONS . THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER OR BANK ACCOUNTS TO PROVE HER CLAIM. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LOAN WAS THROUGH TRANSFER/ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ONLY. THEREFORE, TH E CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF 6,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 17. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FROM HE R HUSBAND AND IT IS EVIDENCED IN THE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUN T AND THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE & THE PARTY IS IDENTIFIED AN D IN OUR OPINION, THIS TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE CLOSE RELATIVES, WHIC H CANNOT BE - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 15 DOUBTED AND ADDITION IS DELETED. THIS GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 18. THE NEXT GROUND IN ITA NO.971/MDS/2016 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF 1,50,000/- RECEIVED FROM M/S.TRIPLE A TECHNOLOGIES. 19. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. ACCO RDINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AS NOT PRESSED. 20. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.971/MDS/2016 IS WITH REGARD TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF 34,80,135/-. 21. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF 4,500,000/- PAID TO MR. SUBBIAH PILLAI AS COMMISSIO N, 5,24,500/- PAID TO LOCAL PEOPLE FOR GETTING PREMIUM RATE AND 27,16,622/- AS LAND IMPROVEMENT COST AS THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO PROVE THE SAME WITH EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY 2007- - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 16 08, SHE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF 1,38,90,000/- AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR A PIECE OF LAND AT KARAPAKKAM. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF 1,01,98,878/- AND IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, SHE HAD CLAIMED E XPENSES OF 9,74,500/- IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF THE L AND AND A SUM OF 27,16,622/- AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT, WITH REGARD TO THE LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED ALL THE AFORESAID PAYMEN TS MADE BY HER IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF THE LAND. HO WEVER, THE AO HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE PAYMENT OF 4,50,000/- TO MR. SUBBIAH PILLAI, THROUGH BANK TOWARDS COMMISSIONER, WITHOUT ANY REASON. THE COMMISSION PAYMENT TO MRS. SUBBIAH PILLAI IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION WHILE WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS. BES IDES, THE AO HAD ALSO NOT ACCEPTED ANOTHER CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF 5,24,500/- BEING AMOUNT PAID TO LOCAL PEOPLE, COMMISSION AGENT S ETC., WHO HELPED THE ASSESSEE IN GETTING HIGH RATES FROM THE BUYER. 21.1 ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, AS REGARDS THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF 27,16,622/- THE AO HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FOLLOWING FACTS: I) THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED THE LOW LYING AGRICUL TURAL LAND BY WAY OF GIFT FROM HER MOTHER AND DEVELOPED T HE - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 17 SAME DURING THE YEAR AS RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PLOTS B Y LAND FILLING, LEVELLING AND COMPOUNDING WORK. II) SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE SALE OF LAND IT WAS CLA SSIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL ZONE. III) THE GUIDELINE VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF ACQUIRIN G THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS 9,78,000/- PER ACRE (I. 22.45 PS). THE GUIDELINE VALUE WAS 400/- PER SQ.FT. AS ON THE DATE OF SALE OF LAND. HOWEVER, THE LAND WAS ACTUALLY SO LD FOR 1,38,90,000/-, WHICH WORKS TO 1679/- PER SQ.FT. IV) THE APPELLANT COULD SELL THE LAND FOR SUCH AN APPRECIATED VALUE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT O F THE SAID LAND BY INCURRING THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY H ER. 21.2 ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE AFOR ESAID REASONS, THE ADDITION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO THE EXTENT OF 34,80,135/- MADE BY THE AO TO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF 1,01,98,878/- ALREADY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TOTALLY ERRONEOUS AND THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE EXPENDIT URE CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO MR. SUBBIAH PILLAI AND PAYMENT MADE TO LOCAL PEOPLE AND EXPENSE S INCURRED FOR IMPROVEMENT OF LAND SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND LONG TERM CAPITAL - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 18 GAINS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. 21.3 ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT TH E AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 25.1.2016 HAS STATED THAT THE A DDITION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED FURTHER SUBMISS IONS. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS), CONFIRMED THE ACTION O F THE AO IN RE-COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. AGGRIEVE D, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE PAYMENT OF 4,74,500/- PAID TO MR.SUBBIAH PILLAI THROUGH BANK TOWARDS COMMISSION VIDE CHEQUE NO.1167 93 DRAWN ON INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,ADYAR BRANCH REFLECTE D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 15.03.2007. BEING SO, IT CANNOT BE DOUBTED AND IN OUR OPINION, IT IS TO BE ALLOWED WHILE COMP UTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF 5 LAKHS IS SAID TO BE PAID TO LOCAL PEOPLE TO HELP THE ASSESSEE IN GET TING HIGH RATES FROM THE BUYER. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO S HOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF 5 LAKHS WAS PAID. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 19 ESTABLISHED ANY NECESSITY TO INCUR THAT EXPENDITURE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIE S. HENCE, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 22.1. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT O F 27,16,622/-, THE LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WA S SITUATED AT LOW LYING AREA AND WAS DEVELOPED TO MAKE IT FIT TO USED AS RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PLOTS BY LAND FILLING, LEVELLIN G AND COMPOUNDING WORK. HOWEVER, EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON REC ORD DOES NOT SUGGEST THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE LAND. HENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE REGARDING COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF LAND, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A.R. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND STANDS DISMISSED. 23. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.972/MDS/2016 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF 9,40,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT RECEIVED FROM MR. NETAJI. 24. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF 9,40,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT RECEIVED FROM SHRI NETAJI ON - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 20 THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE LAND FOR WHICH ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED AND THE CONFIRM ATION LETTER WAS NOT FURNISHED. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE MODE OF RECEIPT OF THE ADVANCE RECEIV ED AS WELL AS THE PAN AND THE ACCOUNT COPY WAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED . THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHE D THE PAN OF THE PERSON, WHO HAS GIVEN THE MONEY. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 25. THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FUR NISHED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM MR. NETAJI. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 25. 1.2016 HAS STATED THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. A CO PY OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS NO T FURNISHED FURTHER SUBMISSIONS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME WITH HER BANK ACCOUNT, THE CIT(APPEALS) CO NFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 21 26. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT MR. NETAJI PAID A SUM OF 9,40,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ADVANCE FOR PURC HASE OF LAND OWNED BY HER AT PULUDIVAKKAM VILLAGE, KANCHIP URAM DIST OUT OF HIS SAVINGS. HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT CONCLUDED THE PURCHASE, THE ASSESSEE REFUNDED 8,40,000/- , WHICH WAS DULY REFLECTED IN IOB ACCOUNT (PAGE 17 OF PAPER BOOK FOR AY 2008-09) IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. I) 2,40,000/- PAID ON 10.04.2007 TO RAMYA SUNDARAMAN ON INSTRUCTIONS OF MR.NETHAJI VIDE CHEQLUE NO.352270 D RAWN ON IOB) II) 6/- LAKHS PAID ON 13.04.2007 TO MR.NETHAJI VIDE CH EQUE NO.137063 DRAWN ON IOB. ACCORDINGLY, HE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION TO BE DELE TED. IN OUR OPINION, THERE WAS A RETURN OF 8,40,000/-, WHICH WAS NOT DOUBTED BY THE AO. BEING SO, THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE BY MR. NETAJI TO ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DOUBTED. ON THE SAME L OGIC, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRANSACTION IS HELD THR OUGH BANKING CHANNELS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY DISCHARGED HER ONU S AS REGARDS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY, T HIS ADDITION IS DELETED. - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 22 27. THE NEXT ISSUE FOR THE AY 2008-09 IN ITA NO.972 /MDS/16 IS WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSIT INTO SAVINGS BANK AC COUNT OF 50,000/- AND 14,05,000/- FOR THE AY 2011-12 IN ITA NO.974/MDS/2016. 28. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE SIMILAR IN RES PECT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF 50,000/- AND 14,05,000/-, WE REPRODUCE THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN ITA NO.972/MDS/2016 FOR THE AY 2008- 09 ARE THAT THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF 2,30,000/- AS CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS NOT DEPOSITED ON THE SUBSEQUENT DAY. THE AMOUNT WAS WI THDRAWN ON TWO DAYS AND WAS DEPOSITED ON THREE OCCASIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DATE WISE C ASH FLOW STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. SINCE THE ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO CONVINCE THAT THE AMOUNT OF 2,30,000/- IS THE SAME AMOUNT, AS WAS WITHDRAWN, THE CREDIT OF 2,30,000/- IS TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE WEN T IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). 29. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF 2,30,000/- WAS REDEPOSITED IN THE BANK - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 23 ACCOUNT OUT OF THE CASH OF 4,31,339/- WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO THE AS SESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND T HE ASSESSEE HAD, THUS DISCHARGED HER BURDEN OF PROOF REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE AFORESAID DEPOSIT OF 2,30,000/- INTO HER BANK ACCOUNTS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THE AO HAD MADE THIS ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESS EE SHOULD HAVE MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 29.1 IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED ONLY BY THE PERSONS CARRYING ON PROFESSION OR BUSINESS AS LAID DOWN U/S .44AA OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 6F AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THESE P ROVISIONS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAI N ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT MAY ALSO BE INCIDENTALLY STATED HER E THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO BE KEPT AND MAIN TAINED U/S.40AA(3) OF THE ACT, ARE PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 6 F OF THE IT RULES, 1962. AS PER RULE 6F(1), EVERY PERSON CARR YING ON LEGAL, MEDICAL ENGINEERING OR ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION OR THE PROFESSION OF ACCOUNTANCY OR TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY OR INTERIOR DECORATION OR - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 24 AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OR FILM ARTIST, SHALL KEE P AND MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS SPECIFIED IN SUB-RUL E(2), PROVIDED NOTHING IN RULE 6F(1) SHALL APPLY IN RELAT ION TO ANY PREVIOUS YEAR IN THE CASE OF ANY PERSON, IF HIS TOT AL GROSS RECEIPTS IN THE PROFESSION DID NOT EXCEED 1,50,000/- IN ANY ONE OF THE THREE YEARS, IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEA R OR WHERE THE PROFESSION HAS BEEN NEWLY SET UP IN THE PREVIOU S YEAR, HIS TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS IN THE PROFESSION FOR THAT YEA R ARE NOT LIKELY TO EXCEED THE SAID AMOUNT. 30. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE A O IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 25.1.2016 HAS STATED THAT THE A DDITION SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT W AS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED FURTHER SUBMISS IONS. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT THE BANK AC COUNT REVEALS THAT 1,50,000/- AND 30,000/- ARE DEPOSITED AND THERE IS ONLY EIGHT DAYS OF WITHDRAWAL AS CLAIMED BUT 50,000/- IS WITHDRAWN AFTER A GAP OF NEARLY FIVE MONTHS. THERE FORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION RE GARDING DEPOSITS OF 1,50,000/- AND 30,000/- AND DIRECTED THE AO TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 50,000/- FOR THE AY 2008-09. - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 25 30.1 HOWEVER, FOR THE AY 2011-12, THE CIT (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED FURTHER SUBMISSIONS . THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF 14,05,000/- FOR THE AY 2011-12. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 31. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY HELD IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE TO BE CO NSIDERED AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A NO.574/MDS./2012 FOR A.Y 2009-10 CITED SUPRA, IN PROPORTIONATE TO THE LAND HOLDINGS. BEING SO, ONCE THERE IS AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE SAME TO BE CON SIDERED AS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE INTO BANK ACCOUNTS AND TH E LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE BENEFIT TO TH AT EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT TO THE BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF LD. - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 26 ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME AS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT TO THE BANK AC COUNT. THIS GROUND IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTION. 32. THE NEXT GROUND IN ITA NO.974/MDS/2016 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF 22,10,000/- TREATING IT AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 33. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF 22,10,000/- AS CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT IN CORPORATION BANK. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THESE DEPOS ITS WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE FLOW OF FUNDS FROM HER AGRICULTURAL INCOME OR EXISTING RESE RVES, IF ANY INTO THE BANK DATE-WISE AND THUS, THE SOURCES REMAI NED UNEXPLAINED. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENT EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CASH DEPOSIT OF 22,10,000/-, THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 27 CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE W ENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 34. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF 22,10,000/- DEPOSITED INTO THE CORPORATION BANK ACCOUNT WAS OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE FROM THE REN TAL INCOME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SHE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS, WHICH WAS ADVANCED BEFORE HIM, WITH REGARD TO ADDIT ION OF 50,000/- IN EARLIER PARAGRAPHS 29 & 29.1 OF THIS OR DER. 35. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT A COP Y OF THE REMAND REPORTED SUBMITTED BY THE AO DATED 25.1.2016 WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED FURTHE R SUBMISSIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRM ED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF 22,10,000/-. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 36. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS DISCUSSED IN EARLIER PARAS, WE DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE CREDIT TO THE AGRICULTURA L INCOME AVAILABLE IN THESE A.YS TO DEPOSIT TO THE BANK ACCO UNT AND IF - - ITA NOS. 970-974/16 28 THERE IS ANY SHORTAGE, TO BE SUSTAINED. THIS GROUN D IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 37. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH APRIL, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( $ % . & '( ) ( ) * + , ) DUVVURU RL REDDY - ./012304556037- 8 9: /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! 9:;<<5=1>01>?@AB@3 )8 /CHENNAI, C9 /DATED, THE 12 TH APRIL, 2017. K S SUNDARAM 9D EFGF /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. H- /CIT(A) 4. H /CIT 5. FIJ K /DR 6. J(L /GF.