Kiranbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Kheda V. The ITO, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Nadiad

ITA 847/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3385 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRISUSHILKUMARKATIAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIPARINSSHAH

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’SMC’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And Ms.MADHUMITAROY,JUDICIALMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITANo.847/AHD/2023 धििाधरणवरध / Asstt.Year:2017-2018 KiranbhaiRanchhodbhaiPatel, DoorNo.67, VillageBhateraAnanoPol, POBhatera, Ta.Kathlal Kheda-387630. PAN:AVPPP2903H Vs. IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-3, NowWard-1 Nadiad. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriParinSShah,A.R Revenueby:ShriSushilKumarKatiar,Sr.D.R सुिवाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:01/02/2024 घोरणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:15/03/2024 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheAssesseeagainst theorderoftheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals),Vadodaraarising inthematterofassessmentorderpassedunders.144oftheIncomeTaxAct, 1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttotheAssessmentYear 2017-2018. ITAno.847/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 2 2.Theissueraisedbytheassesseeingroundnumber4isthattheLd.CIT(A), erredinconfirmingtheadditionmadebytheAOforRs.10,00,000/-onaccountof unexplainedmoneybyinvokingtheprovisionsofsection69AoftheAct. 3.Theassesseeinthepresentcaseisanindividualandclaimtobeengaged intheactivityofagriculturalactivities.TheAOduringtheassessmentproceedings foundthatthereisacashdepositofRs.10,00,000/-inthebankoftheassessee, thesourceofwhichwasnotexplained.Therefore,theAOtreatedthesameas unexplainedmoneyu/s69AoftheActandaddedtothetotalincomeofthe assessee. 4.AggrievedassesseepreferredanappealtotheLd.CIT(A)andsubmitted thatthecashhasbeendepositedinthebankaccountfromtwosourcesfirstly,out ofagriculturaloperationandsecondly,outofwithdrawalmadeonpreviousdates. ThesubmissionwasmadebytheassesseebeforetheLd.CIT(A)inthegroundsof appealandstatementoffacts. 5.However,theLd.CIT(A)disposedoftheappealoftheassesseeby observingthatthereisnocompliancemadebytheassesseetothenoticesissued uponhim.Assuch,theLd.CIT(A),observedthattheassesseehasnotexplained basedonthedocumentsaboutthesourceofcashdeposits.Therefore,theLd. CIT(A),waspleasedtoupholdthefindingsoftheAO. 6.BeingaggrievedbytheorderoftheLd.CIT(A),theassesseeisinappeal beforeus. 7.TheLd.ARbeforeusfiledapaperbookrunningfrompages1to44and contendedthattheassesseehasmadecompliancevideletterdated11/10/2019, inresponsetothenoticeissuedu/s142(1)oftheAct,dated23/08/2019.Asper theLd.AR,theassesseevideletterdated11/10/2019hassubmittedthatthecash ITAno.847/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 3 wasdepositedthroughtheagriculturaloperation.Further,theassesseeto buttresshisargumenthasalsosubmittedthattheassesseealongwithfamily memberswasowing42vighaofland.Likewise,theassesseehasborrowedcrop loanasevidentfromthebankstatementofBankofIndia.Thus,itwaspleasedby theLd.ARthattheagriculturalactivitiescarriedoutbytheassesseecannotbe doubted. 8.TheLd.ARfurthersubmittedthatthecopyofthebankstatementwasalso filedbeforetheAOwhereinthecashwithdrawalfromthebankwasverymuch reflected.AssuchtheLd.ARcontendedthattherevenueauthoritieshave consideredthecashdepositsasincomewithouttakinganoteofcashwithdrawal whichwasusedforsuchcashdepositsduringdemonetizationperiod.TheLd.AR tothiseffecthasfiledabriefnoterunninginto2pagesjustifyingthesourceof cashdepositsinthebankaccount.Accordingly,theLd.ARcontendedthatthere cannotbeanyadditionu/s69AoftheAct,onaccountofunexplainedmoney. 8.1TheLd.ARhasalsofiledtheadditionalevidencerepresentingthesaleof agriculturalproducewiththeprayertoadmitthesame. 9.Ontheotherhand,theLd.DRvehementlysupportedtheorderofthe authoritiesbelow. 10.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Onperusalofthepages3to40ofthepaperbook wenotethattheasseseehassubmittedthedetailsoflandholdingandbank statementvideletterdated11/10/2019totheAOtojustifythesourceofcash depositinthebankfromagriculturaloperationandoutofcashwithdrawalinthe earlieryear.However,wenotethatnoneoftheauthoritiesbelowhasconsidered thereplyoftheassesseedated11/10/2019whereastheassessmentwasframed dated30/11/2019.Asthereisnofaultonthepartoftheassesee,havingnot ITAno.847/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 4 consideredthesubmissionfiledbytheassessee,accordingly,wearenotinclined tosetasidetheissuetothefileoftheAOtoavoidmultipleproceedings. 10.1Furthermore,theassesseeinthegroundofappealhassubmittedthe sourceofcashdepositsoutoftheagriculturaloperationandoutthecash withdrawalwhichwasnotedbytheLd.CIT(A),inhisorder.YettheLd.CIT(A), dismissedtheappealfiledbytheassesseemerelybyobservingthattheassessee hasnotfurnishanyplausiblereasonthatthecashwasdepositedoutofcash withdrawal. 10.2Bethatasitmaybe,theLd.CIT(A),hasnotconsideredthesubmission filedbytheassesseevideletterdated11/10/2019,duringtheassessment proceedings.Admittedly,thepoweroftheLd.CIT(A)isco-terminuswiththatof theAO,meaningthereby,theLd.CIT(A),hasthepowertoenhancetheincome declaredbytheassesee.Thus,itisimpliedthattheLd.CIT(A)isunderthe obligationtoframetheorderafterconsideringtheassessmentrecord.Butinthe presentcasehehasnotdoneso.However,onperusalofthebankstatement,we notethatthereweresufficientcashwithdrawalontheearlieroccasionas reproducedasunder: Sourceofcashdepositintobankaccountisasunder: 552500Cashwithdrawalfrom savingaccountno 280310100008622withBOI on02/07/2016 45000Cashwithdrawalfrom savingaccountno 280310100008622withBOI on01/09/2016 75000Cashwithdrawalfrom savingaccountno 280310100008622withBOI on17/09/2016 140000Cashwithdrawalfrom savingaccountno 280310100008622withBOI on26/09/2016 65000Cashwithdrawalfrom savingaccountno ITAno.847/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 5 280310100008622withBOI on26/09/2016 308103SaleofAgriculturalproduct wheattoKrunalkumar PrahaladbhaiThakkarbill no.86dated03/11/2016. 28217SaleofAgriculturalproduct BajaritoKrunalkumar PrahaladbhiThakkarbillno 91dated07/11/2016 1413820ToTAL 10.3Itisalsobeyonddoubtthattherewasacroploanobtainedbytheassessee whichevidencesthatassesseewasengagedinagriculturaloperationand thereforethepossibilityofcashdepositsoutofagriculturalproducecanalsonot beruledout.Accordingly,weholdthatthebenefitofdoubtaboutthesourceof cashdepositsfromtheagriculturaloperationgoesinfavouroftheassessee.Thus, inviewoftheabove,andafterconsideringthefactintotalityweherebyset-aside thefindingsoftheLd.CIT(A)anddirecttheAOtodeletetheadditionmadeby him.Hence,thegroundofappealoftheassesseeisherebyallowed. 11.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisallowed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton15/03/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (MADHUMITAROY)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated15/03/2024 Manish