1 Court No. 7 Case : INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 12 of 2020 Appellant : Rakesh Kumar Gupta son of Late Naresh Kumar Gupta, Resident of 1281 Shri Krishna Bajaj, Station Road, Mainpuri Respondent : Commissioner Of Income Tax, Agra Counsel for Appellant : Anwar Hussain Counsel for Respondent : Gaurav Mahajan Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. In this appeal under section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961, appellant has raised three substantial questions of law in respect of judgment and order of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra, dated 8 th July, 2019. substantial questions of law, as formulated by appellant, read as follows : (i) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was legally justified in sustaining addition of Rs. 14,31,582/ and Rs. 43,804/ U/s 68 of Income Tax Act? (ii) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was legally justified in disbelieving affidavit filed by father of assessee who had testified availability of money as result of agriculture produce sold and past savings duly deposited in bank account. (iii)Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was legally justified in upholding order of CIT (Appeals)? 2. We notice from papers before us that learned Tribunal has proceeded to decide appeal of appellant, namely, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, upholding order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), being first appellate authority who confirmed assessment order dated 18th February, 2014, passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (4), Mainpuri. 3. questions of law, as set out hereinabove, in our view, 2 are not substantial questions of law but are essentially factual in nature. reasons for this conclusion will appear hereunder. 4. Whether addition of Rs. 14,31,582/ can be sustained or not is factual issue that was specifically gone into by Assessing Officer in assessment order dated 18th February, 2014, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow : ....Thus it is clear that in relevant assessment year assessee has deposited cash. If in years prior to assessment year under consideration assessee has deposited amount as it has been deposited in relevant assessment year, agriculture income could have been accepted. Therefore amount which has been deposited in joint account held with his father is money of assessee himself from undisclosed amount. Since in financial year 2009 10 Rs. 290000/ was deposited and assessee's father has agriculture land, sum of Rs. 200000/ can be treated to have been invested in margin money out of agriculture income of father. Thus it is clear that assessee could explain source of availability of Rs. 909096/ out of investment made at Rs. 2340678/ and balance amount of Rs. 1431582/ has not been explained. Therefore amount of Rs. 1431582/ is added to income of assessee as undisclosed income. 5. assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in respect of assessment order dated 18th February, 2014, and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld order of Assessing Officer dated 18 th February, 2014, with following reasons : 5- 6. learned Tribunal in judgment and order dated 8 th July, 2019, has specifically considered issue in paragraphs 7.2, 8, 9 and 10 of its order, which read as follows : 7.2. From record, we find that agricultural land was owned by assessee's father. However, assessee has not claimed such agricultural income from his father either in earlier assessment years or in succeeding years. Over and above assessee's father is neither filing return of income nor any statement of account including income and expenditure statement of working of his agricultural income has been furnished by assessee either before Authorities below or before us so as to ascertain correct amount of agricultural income. It is noticed that assessee has failed to produce material documentary evidence to proof cultivation of agricultural produce by way of Khasra Khatauni, source of irrigation (tube well/canal), evidence on cold storage etc. to justify cash deposits in aforesaid joint bank account in which even cash deposits do not correlate with proceeds emanating from Mandi Parishad. Therfore, agricultural income claimed from sale of accumulated produce of two and half years in between March 2010 to October, 2010 towards cash deposit in bank account in anticipation to corresponding withdrawals to agricultural operations to be carried out for earning such volume of agricultural income of Rs. 15,02,220/ is rightly disbelieved by ld. CIT (A), to demonstrate availability of cash Rs. 14,31,582/ for investment in margin money of share trading business.(ABP. Page 9) 8.It is evident from above that for purpose of claiming benefit of agriculture income, it is necessary to produce material evidence to substantiate claim of agricultural income for assessment year under consideration. Further, assessee should maintain accounts pertaining to entire agriculture activity. In instant case, no account was maintained by assessee. 9.Following Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Smt. Prem Sundari vs. CIT , (supra) we uphold order of ld. CIT (A) in sustaining addition of Rs. 14,31,582/ . Accordingly, all five grounds of assessee on this issue are dismissed. 10. As regards to addition of Rs. 43804/ in respect of accumulated interest on RD A/c, it is noticed that aforesaid interest amount was found credited in RD bank amount in year under consideration by AO. Since, assessee failed to demonstrate on basis of documentary evidence that said Interest income was related to earlier years either 5 before authorities below or before us and therefore, we are inclined to appreciate finding of CIT (A) on this issue as legal and justified and confirm addition accordingly. This ground of appeal is also rejected. 7. In view of above concurrent findings, we do not find any merit for purpose of entertaining this appeal, since no substantial questions of law are involved. 8. In such circumstances, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and stands, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date : 13.2.2020 Pratima/Neeraj (Biswanath Somadder,J.) (Dr.Y.K.Srivastava,J.) Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Agra