Shri dilipsinh Harubha Parmar, Limlipa, Muli, Dist. Surendranagar V. The Income Tax Officer, ward-4, Surendranagar

ITA 285/RJT/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Dilipsinh Harubha Parmar, the appellant, who contested the additions made to his income by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 69 of the IT Act, 1961, and the subsequent confirmation of these additions by the CIT(A). The additions were based on unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account and a reduction in reported agricultural income. The Tribunal examined the documents and submissions made by the assessee, which included details of agricultural land holdings and income from crop sales. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims of agricultural income, which was not adequately considered by the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 138321 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T . A . N o . 2 8 5/ R j t/ 2 0 19 ( A s s e s s me nt Y ea r : 20 1 1- 12 ) D il ip s i nh H a r u b ha Pa r m a r Li m li pa , Mu li , Ta : Mu li, Su re n d r a n a g a r Vs . I T O W ar d- 4, S u r en dr an ag a r [ P A N N o . B H Q P P7 3 88 Q ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 16.01.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 20.01.2023 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT-(Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case while confirming addition of Rs.7,98,500/- u/s.69 of the IT Act, 1961 appreciating the facts of the case and submissions of the assessee. As such, addition of Rs.7,98,500/- may please be deleted. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case while confirming reduction in agricultural income from Rs.12,00,000 to Rs.6,67,500/- without appreciating the facts of sufficient agricultural land holding details submitted. As such, agricultural income shown in the return of income at Rs.12,00,000/- may please be accepted. 3. The assessee craves to add, alter, delete, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” ITA No.285/Rjt/2019 Dilipsinh Harubha Parmar vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2 - 3. As per information received through NMA i-taxnet portal, it was reported that the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs. 16,66,000/- during F.Y. 2010-11 in the saving bank account. The assessee did not file return of income. During the course of verification the assessee failed to furnish any reply therefore the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income amounting to Rs. 16,66,000/- deposited in cash in saving bank account is escaped the assessment. After recording the reasons dated 21.03.2018 the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 of the Act after obtaining prior approval of the competent authority. In response to notice under Section 148, the assessee replied vide letter dated 01.05.2018 and submitted that the assessee is a farmer and deposited cash from agricultural crops sale income. The assessee submitted Form No. 8A, Form 7A and Form 12 of agricultural land ledger. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to explain the nature source of income and therefore made addition of Rs. 7,98,500/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 5. At time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notice. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions made before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) by the assessee which are extracted in the respective orders. 6. There is a delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed affidavit dated 26.11.2019 thereby submitting that the ITA No.285/Rjt/2019 Dilipsinh Harubha Parmar vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 3 - assessee is a senior citizen and doing agricultural work and having medical problems due to old age and therefore could file the appeal within the stipulated time. The reason appears to be genuine. Therefore, the delay is condoned. 7. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has enhanced the addition of Rs. 69,000/- in the present case as there was some arithmetical mistake done by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has not submitted any concrete proof of earning of higher agricultural income and therefore the addition of Rs. 8,67,500/- was confirmed (as per rectified order passed by the Assessing Officer alongwith enhancement of Rs. 69,000/-). The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 8. We have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee as a head of the family was holding 20 acres of land as supported by Talati Certificate alongwith his brothers. The cash received from agricultural crop sale was properly given as per the Form No. 8A, Form No. 7A and Form 12 all agricultural land ledger. All these documents were submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A). The assessee also claimed expenditure of Rs. 3,00,000/- for earning agricultural income and has given the relevant receipts/bills to that effect. All these components were not taken into account by the CIT(A) and simply stated that the assessee cannot hold such a large land and cannot earn that much income. But the detail submission alongwith annexure has explained that the assessee was ITA No.285/Rjt/2019 Dilipsinh Harubha Parmar vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 4 - earning agricultural income which is exempt with the supporting documents such as copy of bills and vouchers and also agricultural receipts and expenses. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer as well as the enhancement done by the CIT(A) was not justifiable. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/01/2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 20/01/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 17.01.2023 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 17.01.2023 3. Other Member..................... 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .01.2023 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .01.2023 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 20.01.2023 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 20.01.2023 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 Despatch of the Order..........................................