xplanation INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD“SMC”BENCH Before:ShriT.R.SenthilKumar,JudicialMember AndShriNarendraPrasadSinha,AccountantMember ParshottamdasSomabhai Patel, C/o.S.ASukhadiaAdvocate, L-3MeghalayaAvenue, NearSardarPatelColony Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. PAN:AXTPP1377M (Appellant) Vs TheCommissioner ofIncomeTax (Appeal), Vadodara (Respondent) AssesseeRepresented:ShriDhrunilVGandhi,AR RevenueRepresented:ShriSanjayJain,SR-DR Dateofhearing:20-05-2024 Dateofpronouncement:22-05-2024 आदेश/ORDER PERT.R.SENTHILKUMAR,JUDICIALMEMBER Thisappealisfiledbytheassesseeasagainsttheex-parte appellateorderdated29.08.2023passedbythetheCommissionerof Income-Tax(Appeal)/NationalFacelessAppealCentre(NFAC),Delhi arisingoutofthere-assessmentorderpassedundersection143(3) r.w.s147oftheIncome-TaxAct,1961[hereinafterreferredtoas"the Act"]relatingtotheAssessmentYear(AY)2011-12. ITANo:867/Ahd/2023 AssessmentYear:2011-12 ITANo.867/Ahd/2023 ParshotamdasSPatelvs.ITO Asst.Year2011-12 2 2.Thebrieffactsofthecasearethattheassesseeisanindividual andProprietorofHariKrushnaRiceMill.Theassesseewasderiving agriculturalincomeandmeagerincomefromothersources,hence, theassesseehasnotfiledtheReturnofIncomeu/s.139oftheAct. TheIncomeTaxDepartmenthadinformationthattheassesseehad madecashdepositsofmore-than10lacsinhisHDFCbankaccount duringtheAsst.Year2011-12,whichhasescapedtotax.Hence,the assesseewasissuedwithnoticeu/s.148oftheActdated 29.03.2018.Inresponse,theassesseefiledtheReturnofIncomeon 03.08.2018declaringtotalincomeatRs.11,766/-andagricultural incomeofRs.12,78,510/-.Theassesseesubmittedthatthecash depositsarefromagriculturalincomeandalsoup-holdedland holdingrecordsjointlyheldwithmanyotherco-ownerandsome handwritteninvoicesonsaleofagriculturalproduce. 3.TheAOwasnotsatisfiedwiththeaboveexplanationand treatedthecashdepositsinthebankaccountasunexplainedmoney u/s.69AoftheActanddemandedtaxthereon. 4.Aggrievedagainstthesametheasseseefiledanappealbefore theLd.CIT(A),whowasgiven5hearingsopportunitiesbetween 15.01.2021to03.07.2023.However,theassesseefailedtoresponse tothehearingnoticestherebyconfirmedtheadditionmadebythe AOanddismissedtheappealfiledbytheassessee. 5.Aggrievedagainstthesame,theassesseeisinappealbeforeus raisingthefollowingsgroundsofappeal. ITANo.867/Ahd/2023 ParshotamdasSPatelvs.ITO Asst.Year2011-12 3 1.ThelearnedAOwronglymadeadditionofINR18,20,639asunexplainedmoney withoutconsideringthematerialsonrecord. 2.ThelearnedCIT(A)wronglydismissedtheappealbyconsideringleanedAO's groundsonly. 3.ThelearnedCIT(A)wronglyconfirmedtheadditionamountingtoINR18,20,639 asunexplainedcreditundersection69AoftheIncomeTaxAct,1961. 4.Theappellantcravestoadd,amend,alterorremoveanyoftheabovegroundsof appeals. 6.TheLd.Counselappearingfortheassesseesubmittedthatthe assesseeisafarmermainlyengagedinagriculturalactivitiesand derivingincomefromcultivationofagriculturalproduceontheland ownedbyhimandhisfamilymembers.Theassesseeusedtosale agriculturalproducethroughAgriculturalProduceMarketing Committee(APMC)Tarapur.TheAOdis-believedthesaleof agriculturalproducebills,whichisinhandwritten,therebymade theadditioninthehandsoftheassessee.TheLd.Counselsubmitted beforeustheconfirmationofagriculturalproducebyMiteshkumar LallubhaiPatelofM/s.VinayakTraderforsumofRs.12,87,215/- whichisplacedonpagenos.52to55ofthepaperbook.Thus, pleadedthattheassesseebegivenonemoreopportunityof explaininghiscasebeforetheauthority.TheLd.Counselalsoalso filedthelandholdingdetailsoftheassesee.TheLd.Counselfurther statedthattheAOisofthewrongimpressionthat“wheat”canonly soldinthemonthofAprilandMayandnotinthemonthofAugust andSeptember.Butitisafactthatasseseehasnotsold“wheat”in themonthofAugustandSeptember,butsoldinthemonthofJune andJuly2010.Similarly,theAOoftheopinionthatpaddycouldnot havebeensoldduringthemonthofAprilandMay.WhereastheAR claimedthatsummerpaddysowingseasonintheGujaratstateand ITANo.867/Ahd/2023 ParshotamdasSPatelvs.ITO Asst.Year2011-12 4 thecropisharvestedinAprilandMay,inCentralGujaratandSouth Gujaratduetoabundanceofirrigationwater.Theassesseeisfrom CentralGujarathassoldsummerpaddyinthemonthofApriland Maywhichiscompletedaspertheregularharvestseason.Thus,the AOmadetheadditionswithoutproperverificationandtheaddition isliabletobedeleted. 7.PerContra,Ld.Sr-DR,appearingfortheRevenuesupported theorderpassedbythelowerauthoritiesandrequestedtouphold thesame. 8.Wehavegivenourthoughtfulconsiderationandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecords.Theassesseehasclearlybroughtout revenuerecordsaboutthelandholdingoftheassesseeandhis familymembers.Theassesseealsosubmittedbeforeusthesale invoiceswhichishandwritteninGujarationsaleofagricultural producesandalsoconfirmationfromMiteshkumarLallubhaiPatelof M/s.VinayakTraderforsumofRs.12,87,215/-whichareforming partofthepaperbook.Thus,inourconsideredopiniontheAOis notjustifiedinmakingadditioninthehandsoftheassesee.No doubt,theassesseebeingafarmernotfamiliarwiththetechnical updatesandcouldnotappearedbeforetheLd.CIT(A),sincethe communicationwerebeensentthroughemail.Thus,intheinterest ofjustice,wedeemitfittoset-asidethemattertothefileofthe JurisdictionalAssessingOfficertoconsiderthesubmissionofthe assesseeandthenpassorderinaccordancewithlawbygiving properopportunitytotheassessee.Thus,thegroundraisedbythe assesseeisallowed. ITANo.867/Ahd/2023 ParshotamdasSPatelvs.ITO Asst.Year2011-12 5 9.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisallowedfor statisticalpurposes. Orderpronouncedintheopencourton22-05-2024 Sd /Sd/-Sd/- (NARENDRAPRASADSINHA)(T.R.SENTHILKUMAR) ACCOUNTANTMEMBERJUDICIALMEMBER (TrueCopy)(TrueCopy) Ahmedabad:Dated22/05/2024 Manish