C.I.T. BIKANER Vs. INDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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: