JIGAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 519/AHD/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Jigar Patel against the order of the CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs.1,77,16,980 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, taxed at 60% under Section 115BBE. The primary contention revolves around the non-consideration of evidences submitted by the assessee, which included details of agricultural income and receipts. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had initially overlooked these submissions, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal noted the oversight and remanded the case for a thorough re-examination of the evidences.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34239 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.148/Ahd/2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVAN LIMBASIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: TUSHAR HEMANI; PARIMALSINH B. PARMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"ITA No.519/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jigar Patel vs. ITO Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.519/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jigar Patel, 3, Charotar Patel Co-op. Housing Society, Opp. Swaminarayan Temple, Maninagar, Ahmedabad – 380 008. [PAN – AFNPP 3003 J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2025 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 13.03.2024, passed by the CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.1,77,16,980/- made by the learned ITO (Assessment Unit) as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 & taxed at 60% u/s.115BBE of the Act. The addition confirmed by the learned CIT(A) NFAC deserves to be deleted. The same be deleted now. 2. The Learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in not properly appreciating the facts, various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant during the assessment proceedings which ought to have ITA No.519/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jigar Patel vs. ITO Page 2 of 3 been considered in proper perspective before passing the impugned order on ex-parte basis. 3. The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) NFAC is invalid and bad in law. It be so held now.” 3. The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21 on 10.01.201 declaring total income of Rs.4,750/-. The assessee claimed exemption income of Rs.1,21,19,751/- being agricultural income. The assessee vide submission dated 05.03.2022 submitted that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activities and is having agricultural income and rent income. The assessee is also Director in Kanhai Investment & Trading Private Limited, Jigar Contractors Private Limited, Rajiv Properties Private Limited and Jigar Communication Private Limited. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment on account of agricultural income (non- business ITR) and large cash deposit compared to returned income. Accordingly, notices were issued. The assessee filed the details as mentioned on page no.4 of the Assessment Order. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,77,16,980/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has not considered the evidences filed by the assessee, more specifically mentioned on page no.4 of the Assessment Order, and overlooking the same, has made the addition. The Ld. AR also relied upon the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2017- 18 being ITA No.148/Ahd/2024, order dated 22.11.2024, wherein the matter was remanded back to the file of the CIT(A). 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Oder and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has not at all considered the evidences filed by the assessee including that of agricultural income and the receipts given by the assessee while earning the agricultural income. Therefore, this issue needs verification in consonance with the evidences filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the file ITA No.519/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jigar Patel vs. ITO Page 3 of 3 of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the evidences and after taking cognisance of the same, decide the issue as per the provisions of Income Tax Act. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 12th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Accountant Member Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 12th February, 2025 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad "