×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Kota dated 19/01/2018 for the A.Y. 2009-10 in the matter of order passed U/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Following grounds have been taken by the assessee:
“1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), Kota has erred in not quashing the assessment order passed U/s 147/143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 which is bad in law.
2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), Kota has erred on fact and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- on account of treating the cash deposits out of advance received against sale of agriculture land as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources.
3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), Kota has erred on fact and in law in confirming the addition of agriculture income of Rs. 1,30,800/- as non agriculture and treating the same as income from other sources.
4. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.”
2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.19,07,500/- during the FY 2008-09 in his saving bank account with SBBJ Bank, Jaipur. Since no return of income was filed by the assessee, cash deposit made by the assessee was not found verifiable and thus the case was reopened. After reopening the assessment, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 18.00 lacs in respect of cash amount deposited in the bank account. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the reopening as well as merit of the additions so made by the A.O. against which the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT.
3. I have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. With regard to validity of reopening, it was argued by the ld AR that the reasons recorded for reopening indicate that the cash deposits aggregating to Rs.19,07,500/- have been made in the bank account of the assessee, but the mere fact that these deposits have been made in a bank account does not indicate that these deposits constitute an income which has escaped assessment and also non filing of return of income does not indicate that the assessee has not disclosed income. There can be number of sources of cash deposits by the assessee in the bank account. Unless and until it is brought out in the reasons to believe as to how the cash deposits represent income from undisclosed sources same cannot give justification to reopen the case under section 147/148 of the Act.
4. From the record I found that after recording sufficient reasons, the A.O. arrived at a conclusion that the income to the extent of cash deposit in the bank has escaped assessment, therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the reopening of the assessment.
5. With regard to merit of addition, it was contended by the ld AR that by producing parties from whom the assessee has received cash and by filing relevant papers, the assessee has discharged his primary onus, thus the addition was not called for.
6. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
7. With regard to merit of addition, I found that during the course of reassessment proceedings assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit. In reply vide letter dated 05.09.2016 assessee explained the source of cash deposit of Rs. 18,00,000/- is from the receipt on sale of agriculture land of about 10 bigha to Shri Jai Chand Khokar and Shri Ram Niwas Khokar and received Rs. 11,00,000/- and 7,00,000/- respectively in cash. The explanation of the assessee is that during the year, the assessee has taken this sum in lieu of transfer of his agricultural land of about 10 bigha to 2 persons, Shri Jai Chand Khokhar who paid Rs.11,00,000/- (for purchase of about 2/3rd portion of about 10 bigha land) and Shri Ram Niwas Khokhar who paid Rs.7,00,000/- (for purchase of about 1/3rd portion of about 10 bigha land). Assessee also handed over the possession as substantial money was received, however registry etc. is pending for the reason that the said land was part of the jointly held family land. The assessee also produced there 2