JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Sharvan Kumar Gupta on behalf of Mr. Ankur Rastogi, for the appellant. 2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant herein for the assessment year 1994-95 assailing the order passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short, "the ITAT"), which, vide order dated July 30, 2010, dismissed the appeal of the appellant. 3. The appellant is a private limited company and submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1994-95 on March 22, 1996, declaring an income of Rs. 10,59,837. The entire income was shown by way of agricultural income and thus an exemption was claimed. Initially, the return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on March 25, 1997. Thereafter, it was revealed that huge amount in cash was deposited in the bank account of the appellant and it was further claimed that investment of more than Rs.17 lakhs was made in shares. Accordingly, the case was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. 4. In pursuance to the notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer proceeded ahead to make enquiry with regard to the claim of agricultural income as well as investment in shares, etc. It is stated by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-I, Jaipur, who happens to be the Assessing Officer, that despite of ample opportunities having been given by sending several notices, no compliance was made by the appellant to attend the proceedings. The Assessing Officer, inter alia, required the appellant to provide ; (1) information with regard to advance against share application money to the tune of Rs. 86,100 ; (2) explain the nature and source of the cash deposited in the bank to the tune of Rs. 12,88,227 ; (3) to explain the source of agricultural income earned to the tune of Rs. 12,31,746 the assessee appellant having claimed that he did not have land of its own but had taken agricultural land on lease from various persons. In this connection, the Assessing Officer required the appellant to prove by documentary evidence and to produce the concerned owner ; (4) to provide the bills/ details pertaining to purchase of seeds, sowing of land, electricity and other connected details of agricultural operations ; (5) details of trading of shares and other details. 5. In this connection, the Assessing Officer required the appellant to prove by documentary evidence and to produce the concerned owner ; (4) to provide the bills/ details pertaining to purchase of seeds, sowing of land, electricity and other connected details of agricultural operations ; (5) details of trading of shares and other details. 5. However, except some of the details, which were initially filed, the appellant did not care to produce anything further and the case was decided under section 144 of the Income-tax Act by passing an ex parte order to the best of the knowledge of the Assessing Officer. The appellant, however, did not challenge passing of order under section 144 or reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The learned Assessing Officer thus, made addition by disbelieving the story of agricultural income of Rs. 12,81,500 which was deposited in cash in bank as the nature and source of such deposit was not substantiated. Further, he made addition on account of dealing in shares as apparent sources were not proved. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (in short, "the CIT(A)"), Before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the appellant produced some more material in the shape of receipts from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti ; some affidavits and other materials. Since some of the evidence were not provided at the lower stage and were produced, first time before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), therefore, in the interest of justice, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. It was reported by the Assessing Officer in the remand report that (1) various lands situated in different areas of Nohar Tehsil were taken on lease for the period of one year starting from January 1, 1993, to January 1, 1994, and all the lease agreements are. It was reported by the Assessing Officer in the remand report that (1) various lands situated in different areas of Nohar Tehsil were taken on lease for the period of one year starting from January 1, 1993, to January 1, 1994, and all the lease agreements are. written in the same handwriting or typed, witnessed and signed on the same date ; (2) the stamp papers were purchased on April 3, 1993, and April 30, 1994, and affidavits were made on the same date ; (3) most of the sale proceeds were deposited in bank in April, 1993, only ; (4) some of the agreements are for the period from April 1, 1992, to March 31, 1993 ; (5) all the affidavits show that part of the land owned by the said persons, who have filed affidavits, were given to the appellant company for cultivation and out of which three-fourth of the agricultural produce will be given to the appellant and the balance one-fourth will be given to the owner of the land ; (6)agreement is for a period when sowing is not done in Rajasthan and two cultivation seasons in Rajasthan are June/July and October/November ; (7) the receipts from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti are mainly in respect of arandi, sarson and tara mira and receipts are of the month of April, 1993, when it was impossible, for having cultivated the produce, since the land Itself was taken for cultivation in the month of January, 1993, whereas the crop was sold in first week of April, 1993, and could not have been produced and sold within a period of three months ; (8) no evidence at all was adduced by the appellant as to the payment of the one-fourth of agricultural produce to the land owners in pursuance to the lease agreements ; (9) no details relating to expenses of cultivation was filed except copy of books and accounts ; (10) neither evidence in support of the purchase of seed, fertilizers, pesticides was produced nor evidence of electricity consumption made available. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), after going through the remand report, observed as under : "From the perusal of the lease agreement, one can notice that various lands situated in different areas of Nohar Tehsil were taken on lease for the period of one year starting from January 1, 1993, to January 1, 1994. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), after going through the remand report, observed as under : "From the perusal of the lease agreement, one can notice that various lands situated in different areas of Nohar Tehsil were taken on lease for the period of one year starting from January 1, 1993, to January 1, 1994. All the lease agreement are written in the same hand writing or typed and witnessed and signed on the same date. The stamp papers were purchased on April 3, 1993, and April 30, 1994, and affidavits were made on the same date. Incidentally, most of the sale proceeds were deposited in bank in April, 1993, only. Some of the agreements are for the period of April 1, 1993, to March 31, 1993. All the affidavits show that a part of the land owned by the person who has filed affidavit was given to the appellant company for cultivation three-fourth of the agricultural produce will go to the appellant and the balance one-fourth will be given to the owner of the land. Forgetting about the above mentioned defects, it is very strange that the agreement is for a period when sowing is not done in Rajasthan. The two cultivation seasons in Rajasthan are June/July and October/ November. In certain parts of Rajasthan where irrigation facilities are available, the third crop is taken in the month of March/April also. Sowing season of mustard (sarson) is October/November and of igrandi it is June/July. These are the main crops sold as per the Krishi Mandi's receipts. Mustard will be ready to sale in February/March and Erandi will be ready to sale only in October/November. Thus, it is not possible that the land taken on 1st of January will be utilised for agricultural purpose. The receipts from the Krishi Upaj Mandi are mainly in respect of arandi, sarsoon and taramira and receipts are dated April, 1993. It means the land taken for cultivation in the month of January, 1993, whereas the crop was sold in first week of April, 1993, which is just not possible. In some of the cases agreement for the period starting from May, 1993, to May, 1994, some are for the period of April 1, 1992, to March 31, 1993. It means the land taken for cultivation in the month of January, 1993, whereas the crop was sold in first week of April, 1993, which is just not possible. In some of the cases agreement for the period starting from May, 1993, to May, 1994, some are for the period of April 1, 1992, to March 31, 1993. It means part of the land was returned in the month of January and part of it was returned in the month of April as well, as in March, 1993. Income if at all from the land which was in possession during the financial year 1992-93 cannot be considered for the assessment year 1994-95. As per all the agreements one-fourth of the agricultural produce were to be paid to the original land owner but no evidence at all was produced by the appellant supporting payment of lease rent in the form of one-fourth of agricultural produce. No details regarding the expenses on cultivation was filed except copy of the books of account. No evidence in support of purchase of seeds, fertilizers and pesticides were made available. What infrastructure the company had for doing this agricultural activities were also not furnished. In the light of the above observations as well as the observations of the Assessing Officer in his assessment order, the plea of the appellant regarding agricultural income cannot be accepted. As no other explanation on credit entries in the bank account was furnished, all the credit entries in the bank are considered as the appellant's income from other sources. Addition of Rs.12,81,500, is, therefore, confirmed. The second and third ground of appeal are thus decided against the appellant." 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was also not convinced as the appellant was unable to prove the apparent sources of credit in the bank account and after considering the issue at length the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the story of taking agricultural land on lease and cultivating the land is merely a story and the appellant could not prove by acceptable evidence as to the actual earning of agricultural income in view of the reasons given herein before. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also, the appellant reiterated the said facts. 10. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also, the appellant reiterated the said facts. 10. The learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, while confirming the addition, held as under : "We have heard both the parties. The Assessing Officer, passed an order under section 144 of the Income-tax Act as the assessee failed to avail of the various opportunities and also failed to give reply to the notice under section 142(1). The assessee filed some additional evidence and such evidence were not found genuine. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has observed that the lease agreement from January, 1993, while agricultural receipts are in the month of April, 1993. No sowing is done in April, 1993. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has evaluated the evidence on the basis of human probability and surrounding circumstances. The conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot be termed as incorrect. We, therefore, feel that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly upheld the addition of Rs. 12,81,000. Hence, grounds of appeals Nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed." 11. With reference to the claim of investment in shares, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held as under : "We have heard both the parties. Purchase and sale of shares is available but no details of opening and closing stock given. No details given as to shares of which company have been purchased or sold. Without such details, one cannot ascertain the quantum of profit or loss. Since the assessee is claiming loss, hence the onus was on the assessee to provide the necessary details. Hence, we feel that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly held that the loss in shares cannot be allowed." 12. A bare perusal of the above findings by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as well as by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), reveal that the appellant failed to provide adequate material on the points raised by the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and even before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal nothing material was placed except reiterating the facts pleaded before. When the appellant was not the owner of the land and the agreements were full of discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer it was for the appellant to produce the owner to the satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer for examining or by acceptable evidence or otherwise as also in meeting with the various defects/discrepancies pointed, but the appellant did not produce the said land owners and to meet with the various points. Heavy burden lay on the appellant to prove by acceptable evidence but the appellant did not discharge the burden. 13. Similarly, the appellant was not able to prove from reliable evidence as to deposit of amount in cash in the bank to the tune of more than Rs. 12 lakhs and in investing/trading in shares and it was the duty of the appellant to discharge its onus which heavily lay on it, however, despite of several opportunities provided not only by the Assessing Officer but even by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the appellant failed to discharge its onus. The questions, running into 15, as raised and claimed to be substantial questions of law, are not at all questions of law much less substantial questions of law rather it is essentially a finding of fact recorded by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the same being essentially a finding of fact, no interference is called for by this court. 14. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed in limine. *******