Asifiqbal Ismail Jangda v. ITO

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 69A

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Demonetisation deposits; agricultural/business cash explanation: The reported order concerns cash deposits during demonetisation. It is said to accept an explanation supported by agricultural records, sales/cashbook material and banking withdrawals after the taxpayer discharged the initial evidentiary burden.

Material facts and background

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income

for Assessment Year 2017-18, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,71,610/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS to examine cash deposits during the demonetization period amounting to ₹3,45,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted these despots were from agriculture income. However, upon examining the return of income filed for AY 2017-18, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not reported any agriculture income. The Assessing Officer noted that a cash deposit of Rs. 1,45,000/- was made in HDFC Bank account and Rs. 2,00,000/- in the Indian Bank account, totaling to ₹3,45,000/-. Since no agriculture income was declared by the assessee in the return for the assessment year, these deposits were treated as unexplained and added to his total income under section 69A of the Act. 4.

In appeal, the assessee submitted various documents including

corroborative evidences such as Agricultural Income account, Agricultural Expenses account, sales bills of agricultural income, Form 7 and 12 of agricultural land (showing crop details and land area), and day to day Cash Book, to establish the source of cash on hand before its deposit into the bank account. Further, the assessee submitted that a withdrawal of Rs. 1,00,000/was made from the HDFC Bank account on 04.07.2016 which further contributed to the cash on hand of Rs. 3,45,000/-, along with receipts from agricultural income. Upon reviewing the submissions, the Commissioner

ITA No.963/Srt/2024 Asifiqbal Ismail Jangda vs. ITO Asst. Year –2017-18

- 3– (Appeals) was of the view that the documents provided by the assessee, such as the agricultural income accounts and sales bills, were self-serving documents and lacked third-party confirmation, making them unverifiable. The property details filed by the assessee showed that the land was jointly owned by over nine individuals, with no clarity on the assessee’s share or the agricultural income attributable to him. Furthermore, the assessee had not declared any agricultural income in any subsequent years, and no new evidence was presented to challenge the findings of the Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(Appeals) held that in the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs CIT (SC) and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs CIT (SC) it was held that the onus of proving the source of any money found with the assessee rests on the assessee. Since the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the Rs. 3,45,000/-, the addition made by the AO was upheld, and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by Ld.

Appellant / assessee submissions

for Assessment Year 2017-18, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,71,610/-. The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS to examine cash deposits during the demonetization period amounting to ₹3,45,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted these despots were from agriculture income. However, upon examining the return of income filed for AY 2017-18, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not reported any agriculture income. The Assessing Officer noted that a cash deposit of Rs. 1,45,000/- was made in HDFC Bank account and Rs. 2,00,000/- in the Indian Bank account, totaling to ₹3,45,000/-. Since no agriculture income was declared by the assessee in the return for the assessment year, these deposits were treated as unexplained and added to his total income under section 69A of the Act. 4.

In appeal, the assessee submitted various documents including

corroborative evidences such as Agricultural Income account, Agricultural Expenses account, sales bills of agricultural income, Form 7 and 12 of agricultural land (showing crop details and land area), and day to day Cash Book, to establish the source of cash on hand before its deposit into the bank account. Further, the assessee submitted that a withdrawal of Rs. 1,00,000/was made from the HDFC Bank account on 04.07.2016 which further contributed to the cash on hand of Rs. 3,45,000/-, along with receipts from agricultural income. Upon reviewing the submissions, the Commissioner

CIT(Appeals). During the course of hearing before us, the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to copies of agricultural bills as proof of agricultural income, 7/12 extracts and day to day cash book to demonstrate the source of cash on hand before deposition of the same in the bank account of the assessee. The Counsel for the assessee submitted that none of the documents submitted by the assessee had been disputed by Tax Authorities. 6.

Revenue / respondent submissions

In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observed made by Ld.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

record. On going through the facts of the instant case, we observe that the assessee has furnished various corroborative evidences like Agricultural Income account, Agricultural Expenses account, Sales bills of agricultural produce, Form 7 and 12 of agricultural land (showing crop harvested with details of area of land holding), day to day Cash Book establishing the source of cash on hand as on 10.11.16 before deposit thereof into the bank account. The assessee also submitted that he had withdrawn cash of Rs. 1,00,000/from HDFC Bank account on 04.07.2016, which is also one of the sources of cash on hand of Rs. 3,45,000/- along with agricultural income receipts. However, Ld. CIT (Appeals) dismissed the evidences furnished by the assessee stating that the evidences produced by the assessee are in the nature of self-serving documents. Ld. CIT(Appeals) did not even grant credit of cash withdrawal of Rs. 1 lakhs from HDFC Bank account on 04.07.2016 held by the assessee, without assigning any specific reason. Accordingly, in our considered view, this is a fit case where the primary onus of proving the source of cash deposit has been established by the assessee and the addition of Rs....

Operative decision and relief

(BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 08/04/2025 TANMAY, Sr. PS

- 5– आदे श की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. थ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A)5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पं जीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत/ ITAT, Surat

Date of dictation 07.04.2025(Dictated by Hon’ble Member on his dragon software) Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 07.04.2025 Other Member………………… Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 07.04.2025 Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S .0404.2025 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 04.04.2025 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• Asifiqbal Ismail Jangda vs. ITO

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Demonetisation deposits; agricultural/business cash explanation. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Demonetisation deposits; agricultural/business cash explanation. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Build a transaction-level evidence file: confirmations, bank trail, invoices, ledger, tax/GST records and counter-party material rather than relying on a generic explanation.
• Where the addition depends on a third-party statement or investigation report, record the request for the relied material and cross-examination at the earliest stage.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the clean local judgment copy

Related Finin2min guidance