AMARSANG DAHYABHAI RATHOD,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2039/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Amarsang Dahyabhai Rathod, the proprietor of Aekaldev Roadways, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The appeal was related to the assessment year 2017-18, where the assessee had deposited a significant amount of cash during the demonetization period, which was treated as unexplained income by the Assessing Officer. The primary contention was the addition of Rs.10,47,000 to the assessee's income, which was challenged on grounds of insufficient opportunity to present his case and lack of evidence to substantiate the additions made. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal was based on the finding that the assessee had sufficient funds to cover the deposits, thus providing a reasonable explanation for the source of the cash.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712794 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B P MAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASEEM L THAKKAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2039/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Amarsang Dahyabhai Rathod, Prop. Aekaldev Roadways, Mahadev Nu Faliyu, At Kavitha Bavla, Ahmedabad-382260. [PAN :AMSPR7095 L] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Aseem L Thakkar, AR Respondent by: Shri BP Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.07.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.01.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as \"CIT(A)\" for short), u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\" for short) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NIAC), Delhi has erred in passing an Ex-Parte Order dismissing the appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed 2 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2039/Ahd/2024 Amarsang D Rathod. Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– addition of Rs.10,47,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposited in the bank account us. 69A. r.ws 115BBE of the .IT. Act, 1961. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the explanation furnished by the appellant with regards the source of cash deposited in the bank account being cash withdrawals made from the bank account, agricultural income and income from sale of milk. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making observations with regards the agricultural income declared by the assessee of Rs 2,59,225 holding that agricultural expenses should be adopted at the rate 40 percent of the of the gross agricultural receipts. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer in not accepting the source of sale of milk of Rs.3,25,000/- for depositing of cash in the bank account on the ground that no evidence has been furnished. 6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer on assumptions, conjectures and surmises without bringing any material or evidence on record to establish that the explanation furnished by the appellant is not acceptable 7 The Learned Commissioner of Income -Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer wrongly applying the provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act 1961 which is illegal, bad in law and deserves to be quashed 8. The appellant prays that the delay in filing of appeal may kindly be condoned 9 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2039/Ahd/2024 Amarsang D Rathod. Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 23.03.2018, declaring a total income of Rs. 3,08,870/-. During the demonetization period, the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 13,47,000/- in his bank account. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 10,47,000/- (i.e., Rs. 13,47,000/- less Rs. 3,00,000/- opening cash balance) as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act and passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) on 26.12.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Before us, the assessee submitted complete details of withdrawals and sources, copy of which has been given to the Ld. DR. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 2039/Ahd/2024 Amarsang D Rathod. Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 4– 6. On going through the entire details and bank statements, we find that assessee had sufficient money in his accounts for making the deposits. Hence, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 29.07.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad; Dated 29.07.2025 **btk आदेश की \u0007ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु\u0015 / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु\u0015(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 15.07.2025 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 28.07.2025 3. Other Member 28.07.2025 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 28.07.2025 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 29.07.25 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 29.07.25 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 29.07.25 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order…………………………………… Printed from counselvise.com "