AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM
Appeal in this case has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC New Delhi for the A.Y. 2017-18. Grounds of appeal are as under :-
1.On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 88,07,500/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon it to explain the nature and source of the said credits.
2.On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding agricultural income without appreciating, that the assessee failed to furnish credible and verifiable evidence to substantiate actual agricultural operations.
3.On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in relying upon self-serving documents such as incomplete sale invoices which lacked essential details like transportation particulars and acknowledgment of receipt by the purchaser.
4.On the facts of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that no verification was carried out by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating that notice under section 133(6) was issued to the alleged purchaser, which remained uncomplied, thereby further casting doubt on the genuineness of the transactions.
5.On the facts of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that mere furnishing of a lease agreement does not establish actual agricultural operations and does not discharge the burden of proof required for claiming exempt agricultural income.
6.The appellant craves leave to add. alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.
During proceedings before us the Ld. DR argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has committed an error by deleing the addition of Rs.8807500/- made by the AO u/s.68 of the Act. The main argument of the Ld. DR was that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon to explain the nature and source of sale credits. The Ld. CIT(A) simply ignored it and passed the appellate order.
Per contra the ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a written submission which is reproduced as under :-
4692/Del/2026 agricultural agricultural (Pg. agricultural agricultural (Pg. CIT(A) buyer 13,21,125 27,47,940 CIT(A) categorically provisions computed computed provisions.
The Ld. Counsel of the assessee also argued on the line of the written submission filed by him.
We have considered the findings given by the AO in the assessment order and by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has categorically mentioned in the order that actual cash credit did not exist in the books of account. The ld. Counsel also argued that the assessee has merely made book entries of the sale of agricultural produce and that assessee did not receive any sale proceeds from the buyer of the agricultural produce Therefore, any addition made u/s.68 cannot be sustained on mere book entries.
We have heard both the parties and we are of this considered view that the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) on different grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are very clear and categorical. So, unless some cash / amount is received by the assessee which the assessee fails to explain / fails to explain to the satisfaction of the AO, section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. Herein this case nothing has been received sale proceeds are only the book entry for the same. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is a speaking order and, therefore, in our considered view it does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal field by the revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.