Shri Bhavesh Sitaram Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Patan

ITA 1329/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8375 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1329/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-2007 BHAVESH SITARAM PATEL 6, RAGHUVIR SOCIETY UNJHA 384170. PAN : AHBPP 7063 L VS. ITO, WARD-2 PATAN. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJDEEP SINGH, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 16/04/2018 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/04/2018 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF LD.CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD DATED 5.2.2015 PA SSED FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U NDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, THE LD.C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, HENCE , DISMISSED. ITA NO.1329/AHD/2013 2 3. IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, GRIEVANCE OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.11,89,500/- BY TREATING AGRICULTURE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO RECEIVED AN INFORMATION UNDER ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN SHOWING THAT A SUM OF RS.19,30,750/- WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE WIT H KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.AO HAS REPRODUCED DETAILS OF BANK STATEMENT ON PAGE NO.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN USED FOR MAKING CASH DEPOSITS AND CASH WITHDRAWALS. HE WORK ED OUT UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.11,89,500/-. DISSA TISFIED WITH THIS ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HE HAS SOUGHT PERMISSION TO ADDUCE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE AND CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE TOOK 48.20 BIGHAS OF AGRICULTURE LAND ON LEASE FROM SHRI RAMANBHAI BHUDARDAS PATEL. ON THIS LAND H E HAS AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES AND SALE PROCEEDS WERE DEPOS ITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THIS BANK ACCO UNT WAS USED BY HIM FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPOSITING AGRICULTURE PR OCEEDS AND HE HAS WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT FOR USE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRI CULTURE EXPENSES. THIS STORY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEP TED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR THE REASON THAT BILLS AND V OUCHERS SHOWING EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS WERE NOT PROD UCED. TWO PURCHASERS HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND CONFIRME D PURCHASES MADE FROM THE ASSESSEE, BUT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM WITH HELP OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE LEASE DEED P RODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. SAMATI PATRA WAS EXECUTED WHEN INQUIRY WAS ITA NO.1329/AHD/2013 3 MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON ACCOUNT OF THIS REASONING, THE LD.CIT(A) CONCURRED WITH THE AO. 5. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A PERUSAL OF THE REC ORD WOULD INDICATE THAT BOTH LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS KEEPING IN MIND BACKGROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALLEGED HIMSELF AS AN AGRICULTURIST BELONGING TO A UNORGANI ZED SECTOR WHERE DOCUMENTATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN EXECUTED AS EXPE CTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FROM BUSINESSMAN. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE HAS TAKEN 48.20 BIGHAS OF AGRICULTURE LAND ON LEASE. THE FIRST PERSON FROM WHOM INQUIRY TO BE MADE SHOUL D BE FROM LESSOR TO KNOW WHETHER HE HAS GIVEN THE LAND ON LEA SE OR NOT. IF HE HAS GIVEN THE LAND ON LEASE, THEN IT COULD BE ES TIMATED WHETHER 48.20 BIGHAS COULD GENERATE A CASH OF RS.11,89,500/-. THUS, ANGLE OF INQUIRY AT THE END OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS. TWO PERSONS APPEARED BEFORE AO. THEY ALLEGED THEMSELVES AS COM MISSION AGENTS. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT IN EVERY A GRICULTURE MARKETING COMMITTEE PREMISES THERE ARE SHOPS OF COM MISSION AGENTS WHERE FARMERS BRING THEIR PRODUCE AND THEY F ACILITATE THEIR SALES. FOR EXAMPLE, A IS A COMMISSION AGENT HAVI NG A SHOP AT AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE PREMISES. B IS A FARMER; HE WILL CARRY HIS PRODUCE TO AGENTS SHOP A ND THEN WITH HELP OF EMPLOYEES OF MARKETING BODY, AUCTION WILL T AKE PLACE. COMMISSION AGENT RETAINS HIS COMMISSION AND PURCHAS ER WOULD TAKE PRODUCE. IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.6, A PROPRIE TOR OF KOTHARI BROTHERS, SMT. KAMLABEN GHEVARCHAND SHAH HAS DEPOSE D THAT SHE DID NOT PURCHASE GOODS FROM ASSESSEE, BUT SHE SOLD GOODS AS A COMMISSION AGENT. SHE FURTHER DEPOSED THAT SHE DOE S NOT KNOW WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS FARMER OR NOT. THE QUESTIO N IS, WHETHER ITA NO.1329/AHD/2013 4 AGRICULTURE PRODUCE CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE SHOP OF COMMISSION AGENT AND SHE FACILITATED THE SALES ? T HESE ARE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW MONEY WAS DEPOSITED IN THE SA VING BANK ACCOUNT. THIS STAND HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO AND AGREED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT EXACT DETAILS IN S CIENTIFIC WAY SHOWING THE DETAILS OF VOUCHERS FOR AGRICULTURE EXP ENSES, QUANTITY- WISE DETAILS ETC. WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE , IN OUR OPINION, THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE OUGHT TO BE APPRECIATED KEEPING IN MIND, SOCIAL AS WELL AS RUSTIC BACKGROUN D OF THE ASSESSEE IN A VILLAGE. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE ADDITION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH APRIL, 2018. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER