Sh. Satbir Singh Bhullar Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar)
ITAT Amritsar held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act is inapplicable as assessee does not maintain any books of accounts. Mere possession of pass book cannot be treated as books of accounts. Accordingly, addition u/s 68 unsustainable.
Facts- The appellant is an agriculturist and has been declaring agriculture income consistently in the returns of income filed on year-to-year basis. The assessee owns more than 20 acres of land individually and jointly with his family at village Bhangala. The appellant had not filed return of income u/s 139(1) for the year under consideration since the total income of the assessee was below the statutory limit as prescribed by the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 148 on the basis of the AIR information that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 10,46,000/- in his ICICI Bank Account. The assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, with an addition of Rs. 7,37,948/- by taking into consideration peak amount date 24.12.2017 on account of cash deposited in ICICI bank. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) uphold the order of assessment. Being dissatisfied the assessee has filed the present appeal.
Conclusion- The assessee properly raised the ground related addition U/s 68 of the Act without maintaining the books of accounts. The assessee confirmed that as an agriculturist is not maintain books of accounts for the impugned year. Mere possession of pass book cannot be treated as books of accounts. We respectfully relied on the order of CIT vs Bhaichand H. Gandhi. The application of Section 68 is uncalled for the assessee. In our considered view the cash deposited by assessee is income from agriculture which is not come under purview of the taxable income. The opening balance of cash was also not considered during determination of peak by the ld. AO. We set aside the order of revenue authorities. So, the entire addition amount to Rs. 737,948/- is quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AMRITSAR
The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Com missioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] order dated 05.08.2021 for A.Y. 2008-09.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Amritsar, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act date of order 19.01.2016. The assessee has taken the following grounds:-
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal by passing order u/s 250(6) and sustaining the addition made by the AO.
2. That the order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, is bad in law as the same has been disposed off without examining the merits of the case and is against the principles of natural justice.
3. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 737948/- on account of cash deposited in ICICI Bank Account No 006601529228 u/s 68 without appreciating that bank passbook or statement are not books of accounts and as such no addition can be made u/s 68.
4.That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 737948/- on account of peak cash deposited in ICICI Bank Account No 006601529228 u/s 68 without providing the benefit of opening cash in hand and agriculture income earned during the year under consideration.
5. That the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the cash was deposited in bank out of agriculture income earned by the assessee during the year under consideration.
6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 737948/- made by the Ld. AO by alleging that the assessee made a bald statement in respect of ownership of agriculture land of more than 20acres. That the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous since the assessee had duly furnished proof of ownership of agriculture land along the bank account statement.
7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessee has filed income tax returns from AY 2012-13 onwards and has duly disclosed agriculture income which has not been disputed.
8. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.”
2. The appeal was filed with delay of 441 days. The assessee filed condonation petition with medical certificate from Hospital. The ld. Sr Dr did not make any strong argument against the assessee’s submission. Considering the medical exigency the delay for 441 days is condoned.
3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148 on basis of reasons recorded after getting approval from Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The appellant is an agriculturist and has been declaring agriculture income consistently in the returns of income filed on year-to-year basis. The assessee owns more than 20 acres of land individually and jointly with his family at village Bhangala. The appellant had not filed return of income u/s 139(1) for the year under consideration since the total income of the assessee was below the statutory limit as prescribed by the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 148 on the basis of the AIR information that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 10,46,000/- in his ICICI Bank Account. The assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, with an addition of Rs. 7,37,948/- by taking into consideration peak amount date 24.12.2017 on account of cash deposited in ICICI bank. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) uphold the order of assessment. Being dissatisfied the assessee filed an appeal before us.
4. The ld. Counsel for assessee filed the Written submission which are kept in record and vehemently argued. The ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant has filed the returns for subsequent years in which agriculture income has been declared and accepted by the department. The copy of return for A.Y. 2012-13 is enclosed at page no 63-84 of APB. In argument the ld. Counsel placed that the assessee in appeal filed the written submissions explained that the cash deposit was out of cash withdrawals, agriculture income and out of opening cash in hand.The assessee had also furnished land holding detailmentioning the fact that the agriculture operations were performed through tube well installed in the land. It was also submitted that the appellant holds approximately 20 acres of land which includes self-owned land and land in the name of family members. It was also submitted that the peak as calculated by the ld. AO is not correct and has furnished cash flow explaining the source of cash deposits.
5. The ld. Counsel depicted the ground-wise fact in his written the submission before the bench. Accordingly, the groundwise adjudication is as follows: -In argument the ld. Counsel placed that the assessee in appeal filed the written submissions explained that the cash deposit was out of cash withdrawals, agriculture income and out of opening cash in hand.The assessee had also furnished land holding detailmentioning the fact that the agriculture operations were performed through tube well installed in the land. It was also submitted that the appellant holds approximately 20 acres of land which includes self-owned land and land in the name of family members. It was also submitted that the peak as calculated by the ld. AO is not correct and has furnished cash flow explaining the source of cash deposits.
Assessee’s Ground No 5 to 7
