- (1.) BY way of this appeal filed under Section 260 -A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'], the Revenue seeks to question the order dated 22.05.2013 as passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ['the ITAT'] in ITA No. 507/Jodh/2010 for the Assessment Year 2005 -06 whereby, the ITAT has affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner ['the CIT(A)'] dated 26.07.2010 in the assessee's appeal and has upheld the deletion of the additions made by the Assessing Officer ['the AO'] on account of alleged unexplained income, unexplained investment, and unexplained purchase of agricultural land.
(2.) PUT in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the assessee, an individual and deriving income from agricultural activities, filed the return of income on 16.05.2008 in compliance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act, declaring the income of Rs. 5,23,403/ - from long term capital gain and from other sources; and also declared agricultural income of Rs. 6 lakhs. The AO proceeded to complete the assessment by the order dated 29.12.2009, making addition of a sum of Rs. 34,00,000/ - (10,00,000/ - + 20,10,000/ -+3,90,000/ -), primarily on the ground that the assessee could not file the documentary evidence to prove the source of payment to one Shri Jessa Ram and also failed to furnish the documentary evidence to show the receipt of payment from one Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal. The AO referred to the incongruity and inconsistency in the statement furnished by the said Shri Jessa Ram alleging receipt of payment from the assessee on different dates and of different amounts. However, the CIT(A), after analyzing the material on record and also taking an overall view of the matter, found unacceptable the version of Shri Jessa Ram; and also noticed that no opportunity to cross -examine Shri Jessa Ram was allowed to the assessee - respondent. The CIT(A), after referring to the various facets of the case also found the approach of the AO unjustified and proceeded to delete the additions of Rs.10,00,000/ - and Rs.20,10,000/ - in the following: "In a nutshell, the AO proceeded to make the impugned addition only on the basis of cash deposits in the bank account of Shri Jessa Ram without allowing the appellant to cross examine him during the assessment proceedings. The appellant had outrightly denied the payments on the dates given by Shri Jessa Ram. The AO has also ignored the vital aspect of the appellant receiving moneys from Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal which were duly disclosed by him in the return of income filed in response to which U/s 148 issued to him. Sales to Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal is also evident from the fact that the appellant could not complete the transaction with Shri Jessa Ram as he had no further funds. The deferment of payment noted on the backside of Ikrarnama dated 15.10.2003 is sufficient testimony to this fact. On overall consideration of the facts, it is held that the AO was not justified in making the impugned additions. The same are, therefore, deleted. "
(3.) AS regards, the other addition to the tune of Rs. 3,90,000/ - on account of investment made in agricultural land in the name of son of the assessee, the CIT(A) found this addition too unjustified while observing as under: "I have considered the facts of the case and the D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 198/2013 submissions made. For the detailed reasons given in the decision for Ground No.1, it is held that the AO was not justified in making this addition as well. The addition was made only on the basis of statement of Shri Jessa Ram which only sought to justify the deposit of this cash in his bank account cited above. The payment and the source thereof has been explained satisfactorily coming out receipts from Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal and his own agricultural income. This addition, therefore, deserves to be deleted." ;