Asifiqbal Ismail Jangda Vs ITO (ITAT Surat)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat, has allowed the appeal filed by Asifiqbal Ismail Jangda against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the Assessment Year 2017-18. The central issue of the appeal concerned the addition of ₹3.45 lakh to the assessee’s income as unexplained cash deposits under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had deposited ₹1.45 lakh in an HDFC Bank account and ₹2.00 lakh in an Indian Bank account during the demonetization period. While the assessee claimed this amount originated from agricultural income, the AO rejected this explanation as no agricultural income was declared in the income tax return for the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the AO treated the deposits as unexplained and added them to the assessee’s total income.
In the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee presented various documents to substantiate the claim of agricultural income and the source of the cash deposits. These included agricultural income and expense accounts, sales bills for agricultural produce, Form 7 and 12 (land and crop details), and a daily cash book. Additionally, the assessee pointed out a ₹1.00 lakh cash withdrawal from the HDFC Bank account prior to the deposit, arguing it contributed to the cash on hand. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, deeming the submitted documents as self-serving and lacking independent verification. The Commissioner also highlighted that the agricultural land was jointly owned, with no clear indication of the assessee’s share of income, and that no agricultural income was reported in subsequent years. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Commissioner held that the onus to prove the source of money lies with the assessee, which was not adequately discharged in this case.
Before the ITAT, the assessee’s counsel reiterated the submitted documents as evidence of agricultural income and the cash withdrawal. The counsel argued that the tax authorities had not disputed the authenticity of these documents. The ITAT, after reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, found merit in the assessee’s arguments. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had indeed furnished corroborative evidence, including agricultural accounts, sales bills, land records, and a cash book, to establish the source of the cash before its deposit. Furthermore, the ITAT noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not even acknowledged the ₹1.00 lakh cash withdrawal from the bank as a potential source of the deposited amount. Considering the evidence presented by the assessee, the ITAT concluded that the initial burden of proving the source of the cash deposit had been met. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal and ordered the deletion of the ₹3.45 lakh addition made by the Assessing Officer.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT SURAT
