RAM SINGH HOODA,GOHANA SONIPAT V. WARD 5 SONIPAT, SONIPAT

ITA 934/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ram Singh Hooda, an agriculturist, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the unexplained cash deposits of Rs.10,70,000/- in the assessee's bank account during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer accepted the source of some deposits but disallowed others, including Rs.1,96,183/- claimed as income from agricultural activities. The Tribunal examined the evidence provided, including revenue records and bank certificates, and concluded that the assessee had indeed engaged in agricultural activities and earned income therefrom, which should be acknowledged in his tax return.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298879 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVEEN DAHIYA; CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एसएमसी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.934/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) ITA No.934/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2017-18) Ram Singh Hooda, VPO Barota, Tehsil Gohana, Distrcit Sonipat, Haryana 131001 PAN: AAEPH-1872-P ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 5, Sonipat, Haryana 131001 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : Shri Naveen Dahiya, Chartered Accountant ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar , Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 03/10/2024 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 03/10/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT(A)-12 Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 16.01.2024, for assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri Naveen Dahiya, appearing on behalf of the assessee narrating facts of the case submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist. The assesseee had deposited cash Rs.10,70,000/- in his bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank during the period of demonetization. The assessee explained the source of cash for 2 ITA No. 934/Del/2024 (AY 2017-18) depositing into the bank account before the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee explained that Rs.6,00,000/- were withdrawn from his State Bank of India account for the purpose of purchase of garments/gold ornaments etc. for marriage of his son. Out of Rs.6,00,000/- amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was re-deposited with the bank. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that the assessee had further deposited Rs.2,00,000/- in saving bank account maintained with PNB. The said amount belongs to his son Shri Deepak, the assessee in support of his contention had also submitted a certificate from the bank authorities in this regard. The assessee further explained that pat of cash deposited i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- was from sale of agricultural produce. The assessee had furnished, Revenue records (Jamabandi etc.) before the AO, to show that the assessee had 12.5 acres land on which paddy was cultivated. After harvesting of paddy, the assessee had received cash from sale of crop. The AO disbelieved agricultural income, merely for the reason that the assessee had not disclosed agricultural income in Income Tax return. The AO accepted explanation with regard to source of income to the extent of Rs.6,69,000/- and made addition of the balance amount i.e. Rs.4,01,000/-. Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated his submissions, however CIT(A) rejected the same and upheld the addition. 3. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee in his return of income did not disclose agricultural income. During assessment proceedings for the first time the assessee raised the plea of agricultural income. This is merely an after thought. The explanation given by the assessee to the extent substantiated with documentary evidences was accepted 3 ITA No. 934/Del/2024 (AY 2017-18) by the AO and the CIT(A), and benefit of same has already been given to the assessee. 4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The solitary issue in appeal is with regard to unexplained cash deposits in bank account of the assessee during the period of demonetization. Admittedly, the assessee had deposited Rs.10,70,000/- in his PNB account. The assessee explained the source of cash deposits before the AO. The Assessing Officer accepted source of cash deposits to the extent of Rs.6,69,000/- and made addition of the balance amount i.e. Rs.4,01,000/- source of cash deposits given by the assessee are as under:- (i) Withdrawals from own bank account Rs.6,00,000/- out of which Rs.4,00,000/- were allegedly re-deposited. (ii) Cash belonging to the son of assessee Shri Deepak Rs.2,00,000/-. (iii) Sale of paddy crop Rs.1,96,183/-. (iv) Cash withdrawals from bank on 30.09.2019 Rs. 3,00,000/- (v) Saguns received at the time of marriage of the son Rs.1,69,000/- 5. The AO accepted assessee’s source of cash at Sr. no. (ii), (iv) & (v) and rejected assessee’s plea of agricultural income and cash deposits Rs.4 lakhs. Ostensibly, the assessee had furnished details of agricultural land owned by the assessee during assessment proceedings; this fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. The solitary reason for disallowing agricultural reciepts Rs.1,96,183/- is that the assessee has not disclosed agricultural income in the return of income. Considering the fact that the assessee was having agricultural land and had cultivated paddy on the land as per 4 ITA No. 934/Del/2024 (AY 2017-18) the Revenue records, the assessee must have received some amount from the sale of paddy crop. Therefore, explanation furnished by the assessee with regard to agricultural receipts cannot be mowed down. The AO is directed to give the benefit of agricultural receipts Rs.1,96,183/- to the assessee. 6. In light of above findings, appeal of the assessee is allowed protanto. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 03rd day of October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 03/10/2024 NV/- ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "