Prabhat Mishra Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
Cash deposits explained by opening balance & genuine agricultural income; ITAT Raipur deletes additions u/s 69A
Raipur Tribunal allowed Assessee’s appeal & set aside order of CIT(A)/NFAC sustaining addition u/s 69A. Tribunal noted that opening cash balance of ₹6,16,285 was duly brought forward from earlier year & stood verified & accepted by AO in remand report after examination of cash flow statement & books of account. Tribunal further held that agricultural income of ₹11,00,996 claimed by Assessee was fully supported by Rin Pustika, mandi receipts & land records & was also verified as correct by AO in remand proceedings. Estimation of agricultural income by CIT(A) at ₹2,70,000 based on generalized assumptions & public-domain research was held to be arbitrary & unsustainable, especially when AO himself accepted genuineness of higher income. Consequently, additions made towards alleged unexplained cash deposits were directed to be deleted in full, and appeal of Assessee was allowed
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAIPUR
The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 25.06.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the following grounds of appeal:
“1. I respectfully submit that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in sustaining addition of 12,76,200/-under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, though I had fully explained the source of cash deposits with proper evidence
2. The Ld. IT(A) has not accepted my opening cash balance of 6,16,285/- though the same was duly carried forward from earlier year and reflected in my cash book.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has restricted my agricultural income to 2,70,000/-only on estimate basis, ignoring land records, Rin Pustika, and sale bills of agricultural produce submitted by me.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that I had sufficient explained sources consisting of agricultural income, rental income, gifts from my father, and opening cash balance, which together fully explain the deposits.
5. The orders passed are unjust, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.
I reserve my right to add, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
2. The grievance of the assessee in this appeal is two-fold as appearing in the aforestated grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3.
