HITENDRAKUMAR THAKORBHAI PATEL,VADODARA V. WARD 3(1)(5), INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

ITA 2033/AHD/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Hitendrakumar Thakorbhai Patel against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the addition of Rs. 5,92,006 as unexplained money during the demonetization period. The Income Tax Officer had initially made this addition, which was contested by the appellant on grounds of double taxation and lack of consideration of factual matrix. The Tribunal examined the sources of the appellant's income, including agricultural activities, and the cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The Tribunal found that while some of the appellant's explanations for the cash deposits were satisfactory, a minor addition was justified due to insufficient evidence for a portion of the agricultural income claimed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 707042 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2024
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 180-186/AHD/2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURESH CHAND MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: KRUTARTH K DESAI
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2033/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Hitendrakumar Thakorbhai Patel, Darwaja Khadki, At Simli, Post Simli Talkarjan, Vadodara-391244. [PAN :ARUPP0754 B] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Krutarth K Desai, AR Respondent by: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.07.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. The Learned Assessing Officer and CIT (A) have erred in considering facts of the case and invoked provisions of section 69A of the Act. The addition has been made by the learned assessing officer, and upheld by CIT (A) without considering the factual matrix of the case and therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. ITA No. 2023/Ahd/2024 Hitendrakumar T Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– 2. It is undisputed and admitted fact that the appellant has filed his return of Income and therefore it cannot be said that entire bank deposit represent Income which has not been taxed. If the findings of the learned AO is believed then the addition amounts to double taxation which is against the taxation jurisprudence and therefore same is required to be deleted. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 592006/-, which was duly upheld by CIT (A), and therefore the addition deserved to be deleted. 3. The learned assessing officer and CIT (A) have erred in appreciating the factual matrix of the case and therefore the addition deserves to be deleted. 4. The appellant craves for leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny assessment in order to verify the nature and source of cash deposit made during demonetization period. During the process, it was noticed that a sum of Rs. 11,69,781/- had been deposited by way of cash in three different bank accounts during demonetization period- The appellant attributed cash of Rs. 4 lakh to the amount of loan taken from his father-in-law and he substantiated further amount of Rs. 1,77,775/- with a bill dated 13.07.2016 issued against agricultural income. For the remaining amount of Rs. 5,92,006/-, cash receipts were produced before the AO. However, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the cash receipts submitted by the appellant do not bear the correct dates. The Ld. CIT(A) held that only one sale bill as discussed above was found to have clear nexus with the amount of cash deposited during the period which has been duly noted in the assessment order. The Revenue Authorities held that since the cash receipts produced by the appellant were not found to be prior to the date of cash deposit and hence refused to acknowledge their co-relation with the amount of cash deposit made during ITA No. 2023/Ahd/2024 Hitendrakumar T Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– demonetization period and proceeded to treat the amount of Rs. 5,92,006/- in the form of unexplained money liable to tax u/s 69A. 4. During the year under dispute, the appellant has shown rental income of Rs. 85,480/- and agricultural income of Rs. 4,56,500. According to the appellant, principal source of his income is agricultural activity and the fact has not been rebutted earlier by the Income Tax Department. It has also been pleaded that, if the quantum of net agricultural income shown by him is properly measured in terms of its corresponding gross receipt, it would amount to Rs, 11,41,250/-and the amount of addition is much less than the amount of gross receipt which has indirectly accrued to him during the year. The appellant has also submitted cash receipts issued by different entities against purchase of agricultural produce from the appellant. Sum total of such receipts aggregates to Rs. 4,34,062/- only. The appellant has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of ITA No. 180-186/AHD/2017 to assert that agricultural income shown by him cannot be disbelieved. Since there was clinching evidence to verify that cash of Rs. 4,00,000/- was borrowed from his father-in-law, it was accepted in full by the Ld. CIT(A). Secondly, receipt of Rs. 1,77,775/- was also accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) to be pertaining to the receipts out of agricultural activities of the appellant. However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 5,92,006/- before the Assessing Officer because the cash receipts which has been produced during the present proceeding as well are not antecedent to the date of cash deposit made during demonetization. The factum of earning of agricultural income has not been disputed by the Revenue Authorities. Hence, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances and the land holding of the assessee, we hold that ITA No. 2023/Ahd/2024 Hitendrakumar T Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 4– disallowance of Rs. 25,000/- would suffice non-availability of agricultural income and the remaining amount is hereby deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 09.07.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 09.07.2025 MV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "