BHURSINGBHAI KAGDABHAI RATHWA,VADODARA V. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

ITA 2215/AHD/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Bhursinghbhai Kagdabhai Rathwa against the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 13,04,500 to his income. This amount represented cash deposits made during the demonetization period, which the assessee claimed were collected from various persons as part of his role as an authorized business facilitator for SBI. The Tribunal criticized the lower authorities for not adequately considering the additional evidence provided by the assessee, including a letter from SBI confirming his role and the list of parties from whom the cash was collected.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474754 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH BEFORE: DR. BRR, KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Bhursinghbhai Kagdabhai Rathwa, Pujar Faliya, Jetpur Pavi, Bordha Chhota Udiapur, Baroda-391135. PAN: BNPPR4473M (Appellant) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara. (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Mehul Thakkar, AR. Revenue Represented: Shri Ravindra, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 18.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. ITA No.2215/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-18 I.T.A No. 2215/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. A.O. has erred in making the addition of Rs. 13,04,500/- being the cash deposit during demonetization period without properly considering the fact of the case and Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru has also erred in confirming the same without taking in to the consideration the prayer for additional evidence made before him on 17/08/2024 which is against the rules of natural justice. 2. The Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru ought to have considered the prayer for additional evidence made before him. 3. The appellant craves leave to alter/ modify add any of the ground of appeal. 3. The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,56,200/- from the “income from other sources” and “agricultural income” amounting to Rs.1,75,200/- During the period of demonetization, the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.13,04,500/- in his bank account. On enquiry before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that the assessee is an authorized business facilitator of SBI and that cash amounting to Rs.13,04,500/- was deposited in this bank account was collected from the various persons during the demonetization period. The assessee has uploaded list of parties along with their address from whom the said cash of Rs.13,04,500/- was collected. The assessee has also provided the entire list of parties before the Ld.CIT(A). Further the assessee has also submitted a letter from Assistant General Manager, SBI, Vadodara regarding his appointment as business I.T.A No. 2215/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 3 facilitator. It is a fact on record that the bank account facilitator is also known as bank account Mitras duly approved by the bank to represent the bank at remote location. Even the bank maintains a list of Bank Mitras so appointed by them. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly ignored this fact, and hence, we have no hesitation in stating that in spite of giving the details of cash deposits and addresses of the persons from whom the amounts have been received and also in view of the fact that the assessee has been acting as a facilitator in the form of Bank Mitra, we hold that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in appreciating the facts in the right spirit. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.02.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR.BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad : Dated 20.02.2025 I.T.A No. 2215/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 4 आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "