I explained my cash deposits as loans taken in cash from local farmers and filed their Aadhaar cards and 7/12 extracts. The Assessing Officer added the amount under s.69A because the farmers did not turn up. What happens on appeal?
Identity documents and land records of the lenders are not enough by themselves. The Pune Tribunal held that Aadhaar cards and 7/12 extracts failed to serve any purpose once the lenders, when summoned, did not confirm the loans, and that the absence of the one-time settlement papers the loans were said to have funded left the explanation unverified at every stage. But because the assessee had in fact produced the farmer-lenders before the Assessing Officer on 20 October 2019 and they could not be examined owing to the officer's own unavailability, and because the Departmental Representative did not controvert that, the Tribunal remanded the issue for de novo verification and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
Decided by the ITAT (Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member and Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member (Pune 'B' Bench)) on 2023-06-22, reported as ITA No. 327/PUN/2022; the body of the order records the date of pronouncement as 30 May 2023 while the source heading gives 22 June 2023. It bears on section 69A, section 144, section 250, section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Cash Credits & Unexplained Money, Evidence & Burden of Proof and Cash Transaction Limits matters.
This is the Revenue-side counterpart to Shri Madhusudan Dhakad v. ITO (Indore Bench), also in this batch, and the two together mark out how much proof of cultivation and of a farmer's capacity is enough. What failed here is exactly what practitioners most often file: confirmations, Aadhaar cards and 7/12 extracts establishing the lenders' identity, occupation and the nature of their sources. The Tribunal's point is that those documents go to identity and capacity, and identity and capacity are worth nothing once creditworthiness and genuineness are put in issue and the creditor does not confirm the transaction. Note also what was missing on the assessee's own side of the story: the loans were said to have been taken to close an overdue bank account under a one-time settlement, and no sanction letter or loan closure account was filed. Where an explanation depends on a documented event, produce the document for the event, not only for the people. The saving grace was procedural and is worth remembering — the assessee had actually produced the lenders once and the officer was unavailable, and that uncontroverted fact turned an outright confirmation into a remand. Keep a dated record of every appearance a summoned witness makes. On the merits the order gives no comfort at all: the Tribunal expressly declined to comment on merits and the remand is for fresh verification, not for relief.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessment year was 2017-18. The assessee was an agriculturist. Information was received through AIMS under Operation Clean Money that he had deposited Rs 61.56 lakh in cash in various accounts with Dena Bank during the demonetisation period. He was called on to file a return and did not comply, and the assessment was completed under s.144 on 17 December 2019. The Assessing Officer accepted that Rs 30.78 lakh had arisen from agricultural cash sales for 2015-16 and 2016-17 and brought the balance of Rs 30.78 lakh to tax under s.69A. The assessee's case was that the balance came from cash loans taken from various farmer-lenders to close an overdue bank loan account under a one-time settlement scheme, and that those loans had been repaid within the same year through banking channels out of the proceeds of a sale of agricultural land. In support he filed confirmations, Aadhaar cards and 7/12 extracts of the lenders' agricultural landholdings. He did not file any one-time settlement sanction or loan closure account. When the lenders were summoned none confirmed the advances. The National Faceless Appeal Centre dismissed his appeal on 25 November 2021.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Without commenting on merits, the Tribunal remanded the limited issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification in the light of the one-time settlement papers and other persuasive evidence to be adduced by the assessee (paras 8 and 9).
The Tribunal recorded that the assessee had successfully established the availability of Rs 30.78 lakh from cash sales but had failed to substantiate the balance during the assessment proceedings. No copy of any one-time settlement sanctioned by the bank, and no loan closure account, had been filed to strengthen the case. The copies of Aadhaar cards and 7/12 extracts of the lenders, adduced to establish their identity, occupation and the nature of their sources, failed to serve any purpose because when the lenders were summoned or called on to confirm the cash loans none could effectively confirm; that non-confirmation, coupled with the absence of the one-time settlement documents, was what persuaded the Assessing Officer to treat the balance as unexplained (para 6). The same failure to adduce evidentiary material and to produce the lenders continued before the first appellate authority, so the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly countenanced the Assessing Officer's view (para 7). Before the Tribunal the submissions on merits did not inspire confidence either, and the explanation remained unverified at all stages. But the Tribunal noted two facts uncontroverted by the Departmental Representative: that on the Assessing Officer's direction the assessee had produced all the farmer-lenders on 20 October 2019, and that they could not confirm the position because the officer was unavailable on the scheduled date, the assessee thereafter failing to persuade them to attend again. For that reason, and expressly without offering comments on merits, the Tribunal considered it just and proper to remand (para 8).
The copies of Aadhaar Card and land 7/12 extracts of lenders-financer adduced in establishing their identity, occupation and nature of their sources etc., also failed to serve any purpose for the reason that, when these lenders were summoned/called upon to confirm the fact of cash loans advanced (if any), none could effectively confirm.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppIdentity documents and land records of the lenders are not enough by themselves. The Pune Tribunal held that Aadhaar cards and 7/12 extracts failed to serve any purpose once the lenders, when summoned, did not confirm the loans, and that the absence of the one-time settlement papers the loans were said to have funded left the explanation unverified at every stage. But because the assessee had in fact produced the farmer-lenders before the Assessing Officer on 20 October 2019 and they could not be examined owing to the officer's own unavailability, and because the Departmental Representative did not controvert that, the Tribunal remanded the issue for de novo verification and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. This was decided by the ITAT (Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member and Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member (Pune 'B' Bench)) and bears on section 69A, section 144, section 250, section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 327/PUN/2022; the body of the order records the date of pronouncement as 30 May 2023 while the source heading gives 22 June 2023. This is the Revenue-side counterpart to Shri Madhusudan Dhakad v. ITO (Indore Bench), also in this batch, and the two together mark out how much proof of cultivation and of a farmer's capacity is enough. What failed here is exactly what practitioners most often file: confirmations, Aadhaar cards and 7/12 extracts establishing the lenders' identity, occupation and the nature of their sources. The Tribunal's point is that those documents go to identity and capacity, and identity and capacity are worth nothing once creditworthiness and genuineness are put in issue and the creditor does not confirm the transaction. Note also what was missing on the assessee's own side of the story: the loans were said to have been taken to close an overdue bank account under a one-time settlement, and no sanction letter or loan closure account was filed. Where an explanation depends on a documented event, produce the document for the event, not only for the people. The saving grace was procedural and is worth remembering — the assessee had actually produced the lenders once and the officer was unavailable, and that uncontroverted fact turned an outright confirmation into a remand. Keep a dated record of every appearance a summoned witness makes. On the merits the order gives no comfort at all: the Tribunal expressly declined to comment on merits and the remand is for fresh verification, not for relief. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Produce the creditors and get their statements recorded. Confirmations, Aadhaar cards and 7/12 extracts on their own were held to serve no purpose here once the lenders did not confirm.
The assessment year was 2017-18. The assessee was an agriculturist. Information was received through AIMS under Operation Clean Money that he had deposited Rs 61.56 lakh in cash in various accounts with Dena Bank during the demonetisation period. He was called on to file a return and did not comply, and the assessment was completed under s.144 on 17 December 2019. The Assessing Officer accepted that Rs 30.78 lakh had arisen from agricultural cash sales for 2015-16 and 2016-17 and brought the balance of Rs 30.78 lakh to tax under s.69A. The assessee's case was that the balance came from cash loans taken from various farmer-lenders to close an overdue bank loan account under a one-time settlement scheme, and that those loans had been repaid within the same year through banking channels out of the proceeds of a sale of agricultural land. In support he filed confirmations, Aadhaar cards and 7/12 extracts of the lenders' agricultural landholdings. He did not file any one-time settlement sanction or loan closure account. When the lenders were summoned none confirmed the advances. The National Faceless Appeal Centre dismissed his appeal on 25 November 2021. The matter was decided on 2023-06-22 by the ITAT (Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member and Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member (Pune 'B' Bench)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Without commenting on merits, the Tribunal remanded the limited issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification in the light of the one-time settlement papers and other persuasive evidence to be adduced by the assessee (paras 8 and 9).
The Tribunal recorded that the assessee had successfully established the availability of Rs 30.78 lakh from cash sales but had failed to substantiate the balance during the assessment proceedings. No copy of any one-time settlement sanctioned by the bank, and no loan closure account, had been filed to strengthen the case. The copies of Aadhaar cards and 7/12 extracts of the lenders, adduced to establish their identity, occupation and the nature of their sources, failed to serve any purpose because when the lenders were summoned or called on to confirm the cash loans none could effectively confirm; that non-confirmation, coupled with the absence of the one-time settlement documents, was what persuaded the Assessing Officer to treat the balance as unexplained (para 6). The same failure to adduce evidentiary material and to produce the lenders continued before the first appellate authority, so the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly countenanced the Assessing Officer's view (para 7). Before the Tribunal the submissions on merits did not inspire confidence either, and the explanation remained unverified at all stages. But the Tribunal noted two facts uncontroverted by the Departmental Representative: that on the Assessing Officer's direction the assessee had produced all the farmer-lenders on 20 October 2019, and that they could not confirm the position because the officer was unavailable on the scheduled date, the assessee thereafter failing to persuade them to attend again. For that reason, and expressly without offering comments on merits, the Tribunal considered it just and proper to remand (para 8). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The copies of Aadhaar Card and land 7/12 extracts of lenders-financer adduced in establishing their identity, occupation and nature of their sources etc., also failed to serve any purpose for the reason that, when these lenders were summoned/called upon to confirm the fact of cash loans advanced (if any), none could effectively confirm."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2023-06-22 and is reported as ITA No. 327/PUN/2022; the body of the order records the date of pronouncement as 30 May 2023 while the source heading gives 22 June 2023. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 69A, section 144, section 250, section 10(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Without commenting on merits, the Tribunal remanded the limited issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification in the light of the one-time settlement papers and other persuasive evidence to be adduced by the assessee (paras 8 and 9). It arises in Cash Credits & Unexplained Money, Evidence & Burden of Proof and Cash Transaction Limits matters, on section 69A, section 144, section 250, section 10(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member and Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Accountant Member (Pune 'B' Bench). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Keep a dated record of every occasion on which a summoned creditor attended the officer's premises. That record, uncontroverted by the Departmental Representative, is what produced the remand. Document the event the loan is said to have funded. The absence of the one-time settlement sanction and the loan closure account was treated as a serious gap. Where the deposit is partly explained, expect the officer to allow the explained part and add the rest — here Rs 30.78 lakh of Rs 61.56 lakh was accepted from agricultural cash sales and the balance added under s.69A. Do not treat an allowance 'for statistical purposes' as a win. The Tribunal expressly refrained from commenting on merits and remanded for de novo verification. Contrast Dhakad: there the taxpayer explained the deposits from his own agricultural receipts and his own withdrawals, not from third-party lenders. An explanation that depends on other people is far harder to carry.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The citator returns nothing. A name search returns a single document, this order itself. No later Tribunal order, no High Court or Supreme Court decision, and no appeal was found. The holding — that Aadhaar cards and 7/12 extracts serve no purpose once summoned lenders do not confirm the loans — has not been taken up anywhere. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Read in full from the indiankanoon print view. There is a date conflict which a later pass should resolve: the indiankanoon heading, seen on two separate fetches, gives the date as 22 June 2023, while the body of the order as transcribed records 'Date of Pronouncement : 30/05/2023'. The heading date has been used for decided_on and the conflict is recorded here. The order is loosely drafted in places — 'could inspire the learned Income Tax officer' at para 3.2 appears to mean 'could not inspire', since the officer accepted only part of the explanation; 'de-nova' for de novo; 'inconsonance with rule 8 of Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963' at para 4 is a reference to the ITAT Rules, not to rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, and should not be confused with the tea rule. The figures at para 3.2 are also odd: total deposits are given as Rs 61.56 lakh, credit given for agricultural income of Rs 30.78 lakh, and the balance brought to tax as Rs 30.78 lakh — an exact half, which is arithmetically consistent but unusual enough to note. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. Without commenting on merits, the Tribunal remanded the limited issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification in the light of the one-time settlement papers and other persuasive evidence to be adduced by the assessee (paras 8 and 9).
TaxSphere, “Shri Samadhan Rambhau Patil v ITO, Ward-1, Malegaon”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/samadhan-rambhau-patil-v-ito-farmer-lenders-who-do-not-confirm/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I am a farmer. Cash deposits in my bank account during demonetisation have been added under s.69A because I could produce bills and vouchers for only part of my crop sales. How much proof of cultivation is enough?
My client taps rubber and makes ribbed smoked sheets to keep the latex from spoiling before sale. The Commissioner (Appeals) has applied Rule 7A and taxed thirty-five per cent as business income. Is that right?
My client asked the officer to tax his bank deposits at eight per cent under s.44AD. The deposits are more than the s.44AD limit and the whole amount has been added. What now?
I hold shares in a tea company and 60 per cent of its income is exempt as agricultural income. Is 60 per cent of my dividend exempt too?
