DINESHBHAI MANIBHAI PATEL,ANAND V. THE ITO, WARD-2, ANAND

ITA 997/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Dineshbhai Manibhai Patel against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs.4,90,000 to his income for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account amounting to Rs.13,52,000. The assessee argued that these deposits were from agricultural income, supported by revenue records and sale invoices. The CIT(A) accepted part of this explanation but still confirmed a significant addition, which the Tribunal found unreasonable, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780635 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: ASEEM THAKKAR
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 997/Ahd/2025 (िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dineshbhai Manibhai Patel Suthar Faliya, At Post-JOL, Anand, Gujarat – 388315 बनाम/ Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward -2, Anand Öथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : BHPPP0097R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Aseem Thakkar, AR Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Rajiv Garg, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 29/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 08/10/2025 (आदेश)/ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”), dated 07.03.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 997/Ahd/2025 [Dineshbhai Manibhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 – 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal. AddI/JCIT (A)-1. Chandigarh has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, AddI/JCIT (A) -1, Chandigarh has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,90,000/- out of total addition of Rs.13,52,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the the L.T. Act, as alleged unexplained money/cash deposit in bank account. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, AddI/JCIT (A) -1, Chandigarh has erred in confirming in part out of the total addition made by the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act without appreciating the case on facts as well as in law and without considering the submission of the appellant, specifically when the matter was too old to gather meticulous supporting evidences. 4. The appellant craves leave add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.” 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal pertains to addition made to the income of the assessee on account of cash found deposited in his bank account amounting to Rs.13,52,000/-, source of which, remained unexplained. Assessment in the present case was framed by the reopening of the case of the assessee and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 997/Ahd/2025 [Dineshbhai Manibhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 – passing order u/s.147 of the Act. The jurisdiction to reopen the case of the assessee being assumed by the AO on the basis of information in his possession that there were huge cash deposits in his bank account, amounting to Rs.31.54 Lakhs and no return of income was filed by the assessee justifying the huge cash deposits. 4. We have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We have noted that the assessee’s justification of the cash deposit in his bank account was agricultural income earned by him. To justify the same, he submitted copies of revenue records reflecting his land holding of agricultural land. He had also submitted copies of invoices of sale of agricultural produce and the assessee also had submitted that cash deposited in subsequent year i.e. A.Y. 2013-14 was of more than Rs.10 Lakhs which was accepted by the AO in scrutiny assessment. The AO disbelieved the assessee’s explanation stating that mere ownership of land would not establish the sale of agricultural produce and also noted that verification conducted by him by issuing notices to the parties to whom the assessee had allegedly sold agricultural produce, by issuing notices u/s.133(6) of the Act, had yielded no response. 5. The Ld. CIT(A), we have noted, accepted the fact of the assessee indulging in agricultural activities by accepting the veracity of sale bills furnished by the assessee as evidence, to the tune of Rs.8,62,000/-. Therefore, cash deposited to the tune of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 997/Ahd/2025 [Dineshbhai Manibhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 4 – Rs.8,62,000/- in the bank account of the assessee stood accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) as sourced from agricultural income earned by the assessee. The balance was not agreed by him noting that the amounts deposited in the bank in cash did not tally with the bills. 6. We find that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is completely arbitrary and based on his own whims and fancies. He has in principal accepted the fact of the assessee indulging in agricultural activities. He has accepted bills to the tune of Rs.8,62,000/- evidencing sale of agricultural produce as being genuine. The only reason for not accepting remaining bills as genuine is that the cash deposited in the bank account did not tally with the bills raised. This is an absolutely absurd reason for rejecting the veracity of the remaining bill. There may be any number of reasons for cash deposited in the bank account not tallying with the remaining bills. The assessee may have deposited cash after accumulation or for any other reason. Therefore, the reason given by the Ld. CIT(A) for rejecting the balance bills is arbitrary. With no other valid reason given for rejecting the balance bills and accepting the fact the assessee was indulging in agricultural activity, we find that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming addition to the tune of Rs.4.90 Lakhs is not inconsonance with the facts of the case, more particularly when in succeeding years the assesses agricultural income to the tune of Rs.10 lacs stood accepted in scrutiny assessment. The addition, therefore, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 997/Ahd/2025 [Dineshbhai Manibhai Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 5 – confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.4.90 Lakhs is directed to be deleted. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced on 08/10/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 08/10/2025 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कȧ Ĥितिलǒप अĒेǒषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƠ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ǒवभागीय Ĥितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "